• 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!

NY Times Says More To Come

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I posted some time ago that the Livestrong travel budget was up about 400% in the last 2 years. They spent 4 million on travel alone last year. Multi-nationals don't spend that much money on travel let alone a company of 80 people.

Its all in the accounts on the website.

theswordsman said:
Yep. He claimed that he got nothing from Astana, but during Team Faded a year ago he claimed the team had not paid Ryzard, his personal soigneur, and that he might be forced to do it himself. What do you thing a guy earns who's willing to be there every day, whenever he's needed, in Hawaii or Nice or wherever?



http://www.womenscycling.net/2009/EventsPages2009/01_TDU/LizKreutz.htm

Twitter @LivestrongCB


Something to do on a vacation day?
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
Seriously though, Livestrong is a decent and well run charity, and Armstrong does deserve credit for his work with cancer survivors over the years. That doesn't make doping o.k but I think it's better to stay on the reservation.

He's not satan. People are able to do bad things in one part of their life and good things in another.
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I posted some time ago that the Livestrong travel budget was up about 400% in the last 2 years. They spent 4 million on travel alone last year. Multi-nationals don't spend that much money on travel let alone a company of 80 people.

Its all in the accounts on the website.

And the accounts have been giving the thumbs up by public auditing.

Last year Armstrong did do much global work for LiveStrong so it's not a surprise the travel expenses went up. They received far more money back from the work itself.

A lot of people who don't follow cycling that closely maybe tuning into sites like this for the first time to find out about this latest scandal. If we come off as a group of wingnuts going after Armstrong's cancer charity on top of everything else, they are far more likely to believe Armstrong's version of events on doping.

Lets appear not to fall into the trap of crazed stalkers.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
Commissar said:
And the accounts have been giving the thumbs up by public auditing.

Last year Armstrong did do much global work for LiveStrong so it's not a surprise the travel expenses went up. They received far more money back from the work itself.

A lot of people who don't follow cycling that closely maybe tuning into sites like this for the first time to find out about this latest scandal. If we come off as a group of wingnuts going after Armstrong's cancer charity on top of everything else, they are far more likely to believe Armstrong's version of events on doping.

Lets appear not to fall into the trap of crazed stalkers.

Why shouldn't livestrong be audited?

It seems to have been shown that a lot of these associations/business are linked, does it not?
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
Love the Scenery said:
This changes everything. As the article states, most investigations focus on the PED distribution rings. An athlete can get off scot-free if he or she gives testimony against their suppliers. Of course, the athlete must confess and be publicly disgraced, but they avoid prison, which is a big incentive to confess.

In this case, if the article is correct, LA is being looked at as one of the leaders of a conspiracy to commit fraud.

The article seems to back track in the final sentence, saying how unusual a step that would be. It is true that it would be an extraordinary thing to do. I'd have to presume it was unlikely.

Armstrong is obviously an American citzen and therefore it's up to the American system what they do with this case. But Armstrong himself is a global name. I don't think it would look too good for America in the eyes of the rest of the world if an athlete goes down for what is commonplace in the rest of the sport and is treated with nudges and winks. I can tell you for a fact that it would be difficult to explain to Europeans why a country would do this to a top star. It all seems incredibly draconian. This might turn Armstrong into a global martyr the same way going after Bill Clinton on Lewiski did. He might even get exile!
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
tubularglue said:
Why shouldn't livestrong be audited?

It seems to have been shown that a lot of these associations/business are linked, does it not?

It is audited, and no I don't think anyone has shown the remotest link to anything to do with this other story.

I think we also need to show a little bit of sensitivity to the millions of cancer suvivors who have been helped by Livestrong. It should not shield Armstrong from these seperate allegations, but I feel sometimes a lot of people over look them whilst they play their parlor games.
 
Commissar said:
It is audited, and no I don't think anyone has shown the remotest link to anything to do with this other story.

I think we also need to show a little bit of sensitivity to the millions of cancer suvivors who have been helped by Livestrong. It should not shield Armstrong from these seperate allegations, but I feel sometimes a lot of people over look them whilst they play their parlor games.

Cancer survivors have nothing to do with Armstrong. The only people who try to link the two are the idiots who think Livestrong has some sort of monopoly on cancer survivorship.

For anyone reading this thread, Commissar is another incarnation of Armstrong's propaganda machine and well known on this board.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

The fraud angle is significant. Most people nowadays agree sports is business. Yet the business of sports is one of the only left where you can earn serious money via straight-forward cheating. This cheating, that we call doping, has not been criminalized specifically in the US, but if there's sufficient motivation by the investigating agency, you can apply generic federal fraud statues to cover certain elements of it in the US.

This does not need to end in a convinction, or even an indictment of Lance to end his careers - both as a cyclist and as a cancer foundation operator. All it takes is one or two carefully leaked depositions of more people in the know. The feds know how to get the info - it's not worth for the people who end up being questioned to lie and end up being charged themselves. The feds would be smart to start with a few retired pros who have nothing to lose - e.g. Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreau.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
I've posted a bunch of links on the sticky thread for a couple of Sports Illustrated articles, including one by a law professor, plus some others detailing areas of the investigation into the possibility of fraud, racketeering, using Federal monies to purchase doping products, personal gain by riders who used doping products to get better results and more money from sponsors, etc. There's also one on money from San Francisco, the Belgian Cycling Federation instructing a Federal prosecutor to pay close attention to the details of the case to see if Bruyneel should lose his credentials, etc.

I see no reason why we fans should think that there was one area of his life where he behaved one hundred percent honestly.

He's still the guy responsible for this last December.
Complete bull****

In this interview, Armstrong will again return to the facts and should Contador extended response after his aspirations in Pisa. It bothers him immensely that Alberto Contador - to his liking - still peddle falsehood, even now their paths separated and Armstrong next year at Radio Shack drives.

"If you play the Tour for the second time you win and you're the king of Spain, it is normal that all stories are allright. His career has barely begun. Let us talk again about fifteen years. . When I subsequently the Spanish media during the Tour had to face, I fell from one surprise to another. We talked little about the atmosphere in the team, but they apparently do. . If you read some Spanish sports newspaper Marca as distributed each day: so many dirty things, unbelievable. Complete bull**** , Complete bull****, mucus pieces, fat lies. They said we were behind him during the Tour. Yeah. Recently he declared that he had no time trial wheels as I explained during the tour. Yeah. (Evil) First, this is not correct. Secondly, it is easy to prove. You only have to grab the phone and bicycle manufacturer Trek to call. Come on, I understand that the Spanish media after their hero, but it was so untrue what was printed. Come on, at the end of the day as a journalist, you ****ing do proclaim the truth. ' "

"No decision Astana at the Tour took was against Contador. Not at all. The best example is La Grande-Motte He felt this as an attack on him, and so are the Spanish media. I was in a bike race and had a radio on. Every five minutes we heard all Johan Bruyneel call: Stay in the front. Keep the front. Everything I did then, was what I was supposed to do. Someone told me that he himself caused the rift in the group. "

"The conclusion is that eight of the nine riders in the Tour reason, gone. To another team. Even his room mate. "

If this had happened to you, you left alone with a Tour-winning team?

"I'd long look in the mirror. I would never let that happen. . Never. If I had to change itself to prevent it, then I would do that. If they needed more money, I would make. I would do anything for them. "

"If Contador is totally different from me. It is also very difficult. He knows no better. He is a Spanish boy who remains in the same pueblo (district) resident. He has his friends, family, the street where he grew up, his country, his people. Such great athletes as they should hire people who support him, be patient with him. But he is surrounded by yes-men. They say with him a lot of 'yes'. Johan Bruyneel also says a lot yes, but if he say no, he says effectively 'no': Lance, you're wrong, this is not correct. As it should. "

Contador would be the prize money distributed to teammates, but not like in your time have given extra money. He did not now, nor was he the first time the Tour, Giro and Vuelta win.

(Evasive) I do not know. I know I never took a penny. I let all year round all my money in the teamkas down. Tour winner if I did still have my own two cents. In 2004 I $ 80,000 (around 55,000 euros) in men. The prize money was around 500,000 euros.For sixth Tour Victory got myself $ 10,000,000. Seventh for $ 12,500,000. "

Can you actually still pals with Contador at the Tour Road soon, make small talk?

"(His face says it all) No, I see it differently. There are always guys that you have less lot, and it carries a squad of two hundred people. I know Contador really not so good. I worked with him one day in Castilla y León (where Armstrong was, red) and three weeks in the Tour. ' I am impressed by the athlete, but it stops for me. "

"I've long been Prof. When I after eighteen years on the day of reckoning for all my teammates, fans and sponsors to appear, then I think I will still enjoy what they find about me. I change nothing, unless I have to. "

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=G8O2KA8D4
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Cancer survivors have nothing to do with Armstrong. The only people who try to link the two are the idiots who think Livestrong has some sort of monopoly on cancer survivorship.

It's lucky that I did not say that then, isn't it. Of course Armstrong doesn't represent all cancer survivors, but Livestrong has helped millions of people effected by cancer. My point is that you should be very careful about bringing Livestrong into the parlar game against Armstrong. It's one thing to go after him for doping, but to go after the cancer charity too, on a spurious and unrelated basis, does effect more people than just Armstrong. It doesn't do anything for your credibility either.

I think you should show a little sensitivity on that aspect. Do you understand? I'm not saying don't talk about the doping, I'm am saying be careful when you smear Livestrong because that effects cancer patients. It's a serious issue rather than this phoney outrage about PEDs - which is all a game if we're honest.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

The fraud angle is significant. Most people nowadays agree sports is business. Yet the business of sports is one of the only left where you can earn serious money via straight-forward cheating. This cheating, that we call doping, has not been criminalized specifically in the US, but if there's sufficient motivation by the investigating agency, you can apply generic federal fraud statues to cover certain elements of it in the US.
I wonder to what extend LA could employ an "everybody knows" defence? The way I see it if you didn't know that LA was doped long before this, you had your head stuck in the sand. It can hardly count as fraud if the sponsors you "defrauded" knew the score. Of cause the sponsors are unlikely to admit to knowing the score, so it might come down to whether the fact that they should have known the score counts as a defence, whether or not they will admit to knowing it or if a sponsor can simply claim to be idiots and make the charge stick.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Commissar said:
The article seems to back track in the final sentence, saying how unusual a step that would be. It is true that it would be an extraordinary thing to do. I'd have to presume it was unlikely.

Armstrong is obviously an American citzen and therefore it's up to the American system what they do with this case. But Armstrong himself is a global name. I don't think it would look too good for America in the eyes of the rest of the world if an athlete goes down for what is commonplace in the rest of the sport and is treated with nudges and winks. I can tell you for a fact that it would be difficult to explain to Europeans why a country would do this to a top star. It all seems incredibly draconian. This might turn Armstrong into a global martyr the same way going after Bill Clinton on Lewiski did. He might even get exile!

Germans would understand this very well. Exhibit 1: Jan Ullrich. A very similar background - Ullrich was suspected to have lied in a civil deposition where he was trying to sue to clear his name of doping allegations. The German federal auhtorities learned enough conflicting info (from Puerto case), took interest, and pursued poor Jan until his career was toast.
 
Commissar said:
It's lucky that I did not say that then, isn't it. Of course Armstrong doesn't represent all cancer survivors, but Livestrong has helped millions of people effected by cancer. My point is that you should be very careful about bringing Livestrong into the parlar game against Armstrong. It's one thing to go after him for doping, but to go after the cancer charity too, on a spurious and unrelated basis, does effect more people than just Armstrong. It doesn't do anything for your credibility either.

I think you should show a little sensitivity on that aspect. Do you understand? I'm not saying don't talk about the doping, I'm am saying be careful when you smear Livestrong because that effects cancer patients. It's a serious issue rather than this phoney outrage about PEDs - which is all a game if we're honest.

Livestrong is a brand, not a charity.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation is a charity.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
...................
Commissar said:
It's lucky that I did not say that then, isn't it. Of course Armstrong doesn't represent all cancer survivors, but Livestrong has helped millions of people effected by cancer. My point is that you should be very careful about bringing Livestrong into the parlar game against Armstrong. It's one thing to go after him for doping, but to go after the cancer charity too, on a spurious and unrelated basis, does effect more people than just Armstrong. It doesn't do anything for your credibility either.

I think you should show a little sensitivity on that aspect. Do you understand? I'm not saying don't talk about the doping, I'm am saying be careful when you smear Livestrong because that effects cancer patients. It's a serious issue rather than this phoney outrage about PEDs - which is all a game if we're honest.

?
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
theswordsman,

I don't think this thread, nor the sticky thread, is the right place for you to post your AC fanboy stuff.

For what it's worth, I think you're more deluded than most of the LA fanboys because at least they usually recognise that LA probably doped at some point. But you actually genuinely believe AC broke the power record for climbing and beat Cancellara in the ITT totally clean.

You have no right to show your face in these threads to be honest.

Sorry, but truth hurts and all that.
 
Commissar said:
theswordsman,

I don't think this thread, nor the sticky thread, is the right place for you to post your AC fanboy stuff.

For what it's worth, I think you're more deluded than most of the LA fanboys because at least they usually recognise that LA probably doped at some point. But you actually genuinely believe AC broke the power record for climbing and beat Cancellara in the ITT totally clean.

You have no right to show your face in these threads to be honest.

Sorry, but truth hurts and all that.

Floyd says hi.

6a00d83451b18a69e20120a8b3edad970b-320wi
 
Apr 27, 2010
343
0
0
Visit site
Armstrong is obviously an American citzen and therefore it's up to the American system what they do with this case. But Armstrong himself is a global name. I don't think it would look too good for America in the eyes of the rest of the world if an athlete goes down for what is commonplace in the rest of the sport and is treated with nudges and winks. I can tell you for a fact that it would be difficult to explain to Europeans why a country would do this to a top star. It all seems incredibly draconian. This might turn Armstrong into a global martyr the same way going after Bill Clinton on Lewiski did. He might even get exile!

Uhm why do we have to explain to the europeans what we do to Lance? It is better to show the world that with all the evidence before us, we treat Lance like he is above the law?? Who cares what the rest of the world thinks, what do the American citizens think? I would be very upset if LA was treated like he was above the law, we are usually all pretty offended whenever anyone gets that sort of treatment!! Draconian?? holy crap where do you guys come from??? GLOBAL MARTYR??? THE GUY IS SCUM!! you are either out of your mind, have no concept of the type of society most Americans strive for, or are a paid goon.
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
tubularglue said:
...................?

It's phoney because most of them use this doping issue as a stick to beat up on LA. They know most of their favourite riders have doped at some point but they're not so bothered about that. On some occasions they admit it's not the doping they don't like, it's the fact he is a douche in general, contradicting themselves.

On top of that, many of the critics would be the first to dope themselves given half the chance. Brodeal and TFF have admitted they are both currently on the substance that Tyler Hamelton got banned for, DHEA. BroDeal has talked about the possibility of doing a course of test.

This is about power. Some people simply can't stand certain other people being hugely popular and successful and thus having a sort of power over them. It's a game.
 
Commissar said:
It's phoney because most of them use this doping issue as a stick to beat up on LA. They know most of their favourite riders have doped at some point but they're not so bothered about that. On some occasions they admit it's not the doping they don't like, it's the fact he is a douche in general, contradicting themselves.

On top of that, many of the critics would be the first to dope themselves given half the chance. Brodeal and TFF have admitted they are both currently on the substance that Tyler Hamelton got banned for, DHEA. BroDeal has talked about the possibility of doing a course of test.

This is about power. Some people simply can't stand certain other people being hugely popular and successful and thus having a sort of power over them. It's a game.

Yet you continue to believe in Unicorns.

"Clean teams like Garmin and Columbia" :rolleyes:
 
Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Visit site
Commissar said:
This is about power. Some people simply can't stand certain other people being hugely popular and successful and thus having a sort of power over them. It's a game.

Other people, being powerless, can't stand being banned 86 times from internet forums and thus come up with interminable new user names to post their inane bullhist again and again.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Cerberus said:
I wonder to what extend LA could employ an "everybody knows" defence? The way I see it if you didn't know that LA was doped long before this, you had your head stuck in the sand. It can hardly count as fraud if the sponsors you "defrauded" knew the score. Of cause the sponsors are unlikely to admit to knowing the score, so it might come down to whether the fact that they should have known the score counts as a defence, whether or not they will admit to knowing it or if a sponsor can simply claim to be idiots and make the charge stick.

I would agree it may be difficult to get Lance convincted on fraud charges. But for our clean-up-the-sport purposes, it's irrelevant. The federal investigation alone can uncover the truth and make it a matter of public record. Lance won't be in a position to say much until there's an indictment (if it ever comes to that). He'd likely take the fifth amendment defence anyway - refuse to testify to avoid making self-incriminating statements.

Barry Bonds, a similar star in a different sport, was interviewed by the same fellow (Novitzky), was stupid enough to lie under oath, and was indicted for perjury. He's yet to face the charges in court, but his career & reputation are toast.
 

Commissar

BANNED
May 26, 2010
12
0
0
Visit site
santacruz said:
Uhm why do we have to explain to the europeans what we do to Lance?

You don't, obviously. That's why I said it's down to the American legal system. But some of the draconian charges that are apparently being looked at here will go down very badly around the world - there will be a backlash of sympathy if they decide to go forward.

And Armstrong is obviously not "scum", that's the point here. He took some PEDs like Eddie Merckx told him to, and like the rest of his peers have done. By pretending he's scum and sending him to the gas chamber, you're going to find that you've over played your hand. Do you really want to see that?

The world is not a paid hack.
 
Commissar said:
On top of that, many of the critics would be the first to dope themselves given half the chance. Brodeal and TFF have admitted they are both currently on the substance that Tyler Hamelton got banned for, DHEA. BroDeal has talked about the possibility of doing a course of test.

More BPC lies. I am not using DHEA or testosterone. I do sometimes use the performance enhancing powers of avocados.
 

TRENDING THREADS