Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[noddy69]

Belongs to a guy called tyson laidler, canadian air force if you believe this.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...one-number-20120914-25w7w.html?skin=text-only

Weirdo.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

From my old hometown, a radio jock named John Canzano interviewed Scott Mercier and Darren Baker about doping in the sport, at USPS, Armstrong doping, and Tyler's book. Not too long and well worth listening to. Link here.

 

[peacefultribe]

Not sure if this question belongs in this thread, or the Alberto Contador thread. Anyway, how many of you think that Lance had something to do with Contador's 2010 positive? I know that there was a discussion about this a while back, but now that I have read Tyler's book, I really think that Lance may have done it to punish Contador for 2009.

 

[thehog]

Not sure if this question belongs in this thread, or the Alberto Contador thread. Anyway, how many of you think that Lance had something to do with Contador's 2010 positive? I know that there was a discussion about this a while back, but now that I have read Tyler's book, I really think that Lance may have done it to punish Contador for 2009.

Right now anything is possible. Hopefully the poking into those dubious UBS transaction might reveal a lot.

 

[reginagold]

Latest move: Lance email to Livestrong types asking them to join him on Oct 16, his cancer anniversary and Livestrong day, to post cancer support messages through Livestrong now, and Livestrong will push them onto twitter and Facebook to create a splash on Oct. 16th. Oh, and the PS line to Lance's message is don't forget to check out the Livestrong online store and get your stuff before Oct. 16th. The machine marches on. Anyone seen the Livestrong adds popping up on the CN site - or is that just for me given I read the Lstrong threads here...

 

[Benotti69]

Latest move: Lance email to Livestrong types asking them to join him on Oct 16, his cancer anniversary and Livestrong day, to post cancer support messages through Livestrong now, and Livestrong will push them onto twitter and Facebook to create a splash on Oct. 16th. Oh, and the PS line to Lance's message is don't forget to check out the Livestrong online store and get your stuff before Oct. 16th. The machine marches on. Anyone seen the Livestrong adds popping up on the CN site - or is that just for me given I read the Lstrong threads here...

no Liestrong ads because i would never go near the place

 

[Bosco10]

Latest move: Lance email to Livestrong types asking them to join him on Oct 16, his cancer anniversary and Livestrong day, to post cancer support messages through Livestrong now, and Livestrong will push them onto twitter and Facebook to create a splash on Oct. 16th. Oh, and the PS line to Lance's message is don't forget to check out the Livestrong online store and get your stuff before Oct. 16th. The machine marches on. Anyone seen the Livestrong adds popping up on the CN site - or is that just for me given I read the Lstrong threads here...

I still gotta wonder if he hates doing all this "stuff".. lol

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Didn't mind getting the emails, but time to send a message. I pulled the plug.

Dear Constituent,

At your request, you have been unsubscribed from our mailing list. We apologize if our e-mail updates inconvenienced you in any way.

If your needs change in the future, we hope that you will consider subscribing to receive information updates from us again.


Lance Armstrong Foundation

 

[Bosco10]

From my old hometown, a radio jock named John Canzano interviewed Scott Mercier and Darren Baker about doping in the sport, at USPS, Armstrong doping, and Tyler's book. Not too long and well worth listening to. Link here.

Scott and Darren both wondered about Lance Armstrong's doping denials in spite of several ex-teammates confessing. Scott said it's hard to imagine that Lance, the leader, didn't know about a significant portion of his team using PED's. That alone makes Armstrong look ridiculous.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Yeah, the lines are so spaced, that even though they never bite the bullet, reading between them is easy.

Always interesting to have the insights of less known riders.

 

[Bosco10]

Well, Scott Mercier did actually call Armstrong a fraud!

 

[Ninety5rpm]

As with all conspiracies, there is always the problem that someone involved might have a shred of integrity, and will blow the whistle.

That everyone on the team is willing to keep quiet about doping "just like everyone else" is believable.

But to purposefully sabotage someone else? That's something on a very different level, and something easy enough for a sociopath, whose only concept of morality is self-serving, to justify. But it's hard to imagine how someone like that can find others to cooperate in such an endeavor. I mean, the folks working in labs are generally not so easily corruptible, I would hope. And how risky is it to fish around for someone like that?

I remain highly skeptical about how much influence Armstrong might have had in that particular area.

That said, paying off other riders' doctors, like Fuentes, to soften their programs, is within the realm of possibility.

 

[workingclasshero]

That said, paying off other riders' doctors, like Fuentes, to soften their programs, is within the realm of possibility.

or mix up their bloodbags and blame the senile assistant?

 

[reginagold]

So I'm thinking, where did he learn all this mean sh*t, even maybe to the point of bad bags and such. Copied some prior king of the peloton? Mean teammate he could copy? Bullies in his schoolyards? Then the obvious hit me - not one, but two abusive fathers. That house must have been a dark hole. He knows nothing else.

 

[the big ring]

So I'm thinking, where did he learn all this mean sh*t, even maybe to the point of bad bags and such. Copied some prior king of the peloton? Mean teammate he could copy? Bullies in his schoolyards? Then the obvious hit me - not one, but two abusive fathers. That house must have been a dark hole. He knows nothing else.

Nurture or nature - a common question.

From a vast distance, I'd say hanging out with George Hincapie would show you a different way to treat people.

Not everyone has a fairytale childhood. Not everyone ends up a sociopath.

In the end, we are responsible for our own actions. No excuses.

 

[babastooey]

I respect George Hincapie, he seems like a very nice guy and a good family man, and he works hard for every team he has been on.

At the same time, if George is such a man of impeccable character, why then would he work for 7 years to help a man who some feel is the scum of the earth? And then, George supposedly turns his back on the scum of the earth only when the heat is on?

How are we supposed to reconcile those 2 positions? Someone help me reconcile those 2 positions before my brain blows up.

 

[the big ring]

I respect George Hincapie, he seems like a very nice guy and a good family man, and he works hard for every team he has been on.

At the same time, if George is such a man of impeccable character, why then would he work for 7 years to help a man who some feel is the scum of the earth? And then, George supposedly turns his back on the scum of the earth only when the heat is on?

How are we supposed to reconcile those 2 positions? Someone help me reconcile those 2 positions before my brain blows up.

Nice guy / family man != impeccable character. Nice guy / family man does what he needs to do to look after his family.

How has he turned his back on Lance? Pretty sure Lance chased George down in the tour and prevented him from wearing the yellow jersey.

Also very confident Lance does not have close friends for too long.

If George has testified to the GJ (and noone knows that for sure) I am pretty sure testifying as to what you did is not the same as turning your back on Lance.

You sound conflicted and I cannot tell if that is because you do not understand what a family guy feels, or if you are a Lance fanboi. Either way, I have no problem with a man getting the job done and moving on. George can be nice - as Tyler apparently was - and doped to the eyeballs.

At a guess he ain't now and hasn't been for the entire time he's been riding for Cadel.

 

[MarkvW]

or mix up their bloodbags and blame the senile assistant?

Killing your customers is not a good means to attract new customers.

 

[babastooey]

I see.

George being doped and helping doped Lance win the Tour is a family man getting the job done.

Lance has a family too, so for him, being a family man getting the job done is to be doped and win the Tour?

So the difference between the two is that one of them won the race and the other one only helped.

Now I see why Jan Ullrich wanted to be in 2nd place all the time. Doping isn't a crime unless you come in 1st or have the name Frank Schleck.

Is it possible that I am now more confused than I am before?

 

[the big ring]

Killing your customers is not a good means to attract new customers.

And the blood mag mixups make a mockery of the claim I have heard on more than one occassion that team Doctors were justifying their doping enablement with the mantra "this is to keep you healthy" / "you need to do this to look after yourself".

Thinking about it more, this is where the minimum required to stay fit and healthy ("looking after yourself") crossed over into the greedy, "do what it takes to win" level of doping.

 

[D-Queued]

Nice guy / family man != impeccable character. Nice guy / family man does what he needs to do to look after his family.

How has he turned his back on Lance? Pretty sure Lance chased George down in the tour and prevented him from wearing the yellow jersey.

Also very confident Lance does not have close friends for too long.

If George has testified to the GJ (and noone knows that for sure) I am pretty sure testifying as to what you did is not the same as turning your back on Lance.

You sound conflicted and I cannot tell if that is because you do not understand what a family guy feels, or if you are a Lance fanboi. Either way, I have no problem with a man getting the job done and moving on. George can be nice - as Tyler apparently was - and doped to the eyeballs.

At a guess he ain't now and hasn't been for the entire time he's been riding for Cadel.

'cuz they are not friends, and he doesn't want to help him as much?

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

'cuz they are not friends, and he doesn't want to help him as much?

Dave.

Or because Cadel don't make people dope? Coz he doesn't dope himself?

 

[peacefultribe]

Nurture or nature - a common question.

From a vast distance, I'd say hanging out with George Hincapie would show you a different way to treat people.

Not everyone has a fairytale childhood. Not everyone ends up a sociopath.

In the end, we are responsible for our own actions. No excuses.

This is an interesting turn of the conversation, nature vs. nurture. I coach now, and was recently involved in a discussion with other coaches about coaching sociopaths and psychopaths. From my studies, and research, the aforementioned are born that way. It is scientifically proven, at least as much as something like that could be. There was a study where doctors took young children who exhibited sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies and put them in a controlled environment. They tried everything to change their behavior, and help them to be more normal. The end result was that nothing changed, and it was determined that a sociopath/ psychopath was born. Nature. Nothing can change it, including intense therapy. They did find that at least one parent exhibited similar tendencies.

 

[D-Queued]

Or because Cadel don't make people dope? Coz he doesn't dope himself?

What does that have to do with George being the super domestique?

Dropped down to wannabe domestique?

Cut in pay?

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

This is an interesting turn of the conversation, nature vs. nurture. I coach now, and was recently involved in a discussion with other coaches about coaching sociopaths and psychopaths. From my studies, and research, the aforementioned are born that way. It is scientifically proven, at least as much as something like that could be. There was a study where doctors took young children who exhibited sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies and put them in a controlled environment. They tried everything to change their behavior, and help them to be more normal. The end result was that nothing changed, and it was determined that a sociopath/ psychopath was born. Nature. Nothing can change it, including intense therapy. They did find that at least one parent exhibited similar tendencies.

How young? This study sounds all kinds of messed up. I am not surprised they failed to change behaviour.

That said, gene analysis could also potentially reveal mssing / additional genes explaining behaviour.