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

[jam pants]

Came to post this .gif. Thanks.

 

[BroDeal]

First sports event to stand up and say no


http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/09/07/lance-armstrong-denied-entry-to-chicago-marathon/

That's gotta sting.

On the flip side, the toolbag who runs Slowtwitch says he has been in contact with many race directors who are willing to give up their USAT affiliation to get Armstrong to race.

 

[Microchip]

UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid

However, as this is McQuaid talking, I expect the story to change as time goes on.

 

[MarkvW]

UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid

However, as this is McQuaid talking, I expect the story to change as time goes on.

I'm noticing that Pat McQuaid is a passive-aggressive little twerp. Notice that he is saying that he is "not considering" an appeal, but he is waiting for the "reasoned decision" AND "the case file.".

While Pat has a right to the "reasoned decision" per the WADA Code, the Code makes no mention of the "case file."

Looks like McQuaid is still jerkin' USADA's chain.

 

[El Oso]

He was banned from the New York Marathon right after he threw in the towel.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...g-from-running-in-nyc-marathon/1#.UEpJkyIwBjs

USATF is recognizing the ban and applying it to their sanctioned events.

 

[Jack Ruby]

Yes, I'm aware of the bolded, thanks. I would assume the 75K day was politically motivated and most likely could largely be attributed to associates of LA. I am merely curious to see if the "regular" donations will trickle down, especially since Tyler's book has been released as well as all the other recent indicators of his doping being made public. I see those donations as a reflection of his popularity among fans and would view a decline being directly proportional to his diminishing stature.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/charity_in_down_cycle

Looks like as a whole they generatied $48.6 million, but only $15.9 million from contributions.

While 75k is above the $15.9 million annual pace, the two day total is inline.
In addition, Armstrong was in Aspen that weekend. One big contibution could easily explain the 75k.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm noticing that Pat McQuaid is a passive-aggressive little twerp. Notice that he is saying that he is "not considering" an appeal, but he is waiting for the "reasoned decision" AND "the case file.".

While Pat has a right to the "reasoned decision" per the WADA Code, the Code makes no mention of the "case file."

Looks like McQuaid is still jerkin' USADA's chain.

The UCI will bow to the Armstrong decision but challenge the reduced suspensions of the witnesses. That's how they roll.

 

[LauraLyn]

First sports event to stand up and say no


http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/09/07/lance-armstrong-denied-entry-to-chicago-marathon/

I think this is bigger news than the California senators weak attempt to get this on the political agenda (still waiting to see how that plays out).

I think they should also ban the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LiveStrong). But for this there is less of an argument. For me this is as bad or even worse than Lance being in the race.

So, all in all. Good news. Really good news. But still it doesn't go far enough.

 

[LauraLyn]

That's gotta sting.

On the flip side, the toolbag who runs Slowtwitch says he has been in contact with many race directors who are willing to give up their USAT affiliation to get Armstrong to race.

It doesn't speak well for USAT. My guess is that the business between USAT and WTC is similar to that between USA Cycling and UCI.

And it comes down to the word "business." These associations are there for the business, the sport is very much second - just a means.

 

[frenchfry]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/charity_in_down_cycle

Looks like as a whole they generatied $48.6 million, but only $15.9 million from contributions.

While 75k is above the $15.9 million annual pace, the two day total is inline.
In addition, Armstrong was in Aspen that weekend. One big contibution could easily explain the 75k.

Maybe Lancey-poo is planning to funnel some of his appearance fees into Livestrong donations for appearance sake.

Oops, so much for that great idea:

Lance Armstrong intended to run next month’s Chicago Marathon as a member of the team sponsored by his Livestrong Foundation, which raises funds for cancer programs. But Chicago won’t accept Armstrong into its field.

“We got the news [Thursday],” said Mark Fabiani, Armstrong’s spokesman.

 

[frenchfry]

The UCI will bow to the Armstrong decision but challenge the reduced suspensions of the witnesses. That's how they roll.

McQuaid's knee-jerk reaction is to threaten punishment for anyone who DARES reveal doping in pro cycling.

It will be so nice when he is booted out.

And Heiny, how about your protégé Lance who has never, never, never doped.

These guys make me want to barf.

 

[LauraLyn]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/charity_in_down_cycle

Looks like as a whole they generatied $48.6 million, but only $15.9 million from contributions.

While 75k is above the $15.9 million annual pace, the two day total is inline.
In addition, Armstrong was in Aspen that weekend. One big contibution could easily explain the 75k.

Jack, I can't get the link to work. Any help? Thanks.

I always believed that that what LiveStrong.org claimed to raise on that day was orchestrated, whether or not it was real. So I am glad to see some investigative reporting going on about this.

 

[frenchfry]

The Lance Armstrong Foundation received $75,000 in donations the day following his refusal to participate further in the USADA case against him. That compared to the normal $3000/day. Is it public knowledge what they get each day? I'm curious to know how it's been doing since and what it does in the future. Thanks.

Daily numbers like that are useless, and far too easy to manipulate in any case. The real test will be total donations for the year - and 2013 will probably be the first real indicator.

I hope doners that see the light about the Liestrong myth will turn towards other foundations that have a clearer mission and no egos to promote.

For example I donate to the Institut Curie, there is no question about the excellent work they do. They are what hope is really all about.

 

[the big ring]

UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid

However, as this is McQuaid talking, I expect the story to change as time goes on.

+1

One thing that is really useful is the friggin' questions the interviewer asked, as it allows you to see the answers given in the context. I have seen that style before, "When asked XYZ, Interviewee responded thus". Alas all we get are the soundbites.

What I find telling is this:

has no intention of appealing against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's decision
...
The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist
...
the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS
...
The reason the UCI is seeking the file is that we want to provide a timely response and not delay matters any further than necessary.
...
Should the reasoned decision and the case file come to the UCI within two weeks as he expects, McQuaid said they could be examined at the governing body's management committee on September 19-20
...
There is nothing new. There was no cover up in 2001 and we see no evidence to support such allegation," he said

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-uci-not-afraid-to-sanction-lance-armstrong

Pat McQuaid has for the first time gone on record stating that the UCI could ban Lance Armstrong if USADA follow through and provides the relevant evidence to back their lifetime ban of the former cyclist.

Full of "talking in negatives": we are NOT going to do THIS. When in the past, in every instance that suits them, that is exactly what they have done.

I haven't done psych past first year, so this is only intuition plus a bit of "Success with the gentle art of verbal self defense", but it's similar to "Do no evil". There's nothing about doing good in there. It doesn't actually tell you what they are going to actually do. But the implied is assumed (do good) when they never said anything of the sort. acoggan is an expert at this sort of thing, with his constant "take me at face value" when so much of what he posts here is ambiguous.

Here's another example most would be familiar with that follows a similar pattern:

I'm not a fan of XYZ, ...

And finally, the most telling (for me) of all:

If ultimately the UCI has to sanction, we will have no problems. We've sanctioned many good riders in the past, we've put them out of the sport and we're not afraid to do it with anybody," McQuaid told Cyclingweekly.

Compare all these examples with what is said when Pat really does want to or intend to do something:

"The UCI assumes that the decision and file will also detail the sanction the USADA may wish to enforce upon the riders who have provided testimony in exchange for reduced sanctions," he said.
...
"We need to see if Jonathan Vaughter's accusations have any substance so we can see if we take action against these riders," said McQuaid

Can you see the difference?

UCI are the gate keepers to decisions, and as has been seen in the past, can delay things. What happens if McQuaid leaves UCI and there's an election - could that introduce delay?

Here's what I am expecting based on the above (and would love it if I was wrong):
1. UCI (Pat McQuaid) will appeal, in some form
2. UCI (Pat McQuaid) will attempt to delay the process
3. UCI (Pat McQuaid) will not get the file in time (like Ferrari never got the charge letter) or something else will crop up (like Pat leaving the UCI to go to the IOC) meaning the case is not resolved during the committee
4. UCI (Pat McQuaid) is afraid of sanctioning Lance Armstrong

 

[DirtyWorks]

First sports event to stand up and say no


http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/09/07/lance-armstrong-denied-entry-to-chicago-marathon/

It appears the event is USA Track and Field sanctioned. It's not like USA Track and Field has a sterling reputation to uphold. But, they've got to maintain appearances.

There's no way he could run without raising many, many more complications.

Another passive message from Olympic sports federations that the WADA ban appears to be totally valid to the USOC/IOC regardless of the UCI. That's good news!

The joker could run any number of events with no WADA affiliation. But nooooo. He hasn't changed one bit. More good news to come for sure! He can't help himself.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here's what I am expecting based on the above (and would love it if I was wrong):
1. UCI (Pat McQuaid) will appeal, in some form
2. UCI (Pat McQuaid) will attempt to delay the process
3. UCI (Pat McQuaid) will not get the file in time (like Ferrari never got the charge letter) or something else will crop up (like Pat leaving the UCI to go to the IOC) meaning the case is not resolved during the committee
4. UCI (Pat McQuaid) is afraid of sanctioning Lance Armstrong

I think the end goal is to keep as much as possible out of public view. How that's accomplished is yet to be revealed. The question remains, what is Armstrong hiding about Hein? So far, Hein and Pat have been happy to test their IOC status over whatever it is they are hiding.

 

[poupou]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/charity_in_down_cycle

Looks like as a whole they generatied $48.6 million, but only $15.9 million from contributions.

While 75k is above the $15.9 million annual pace, the two day total is inline.
In addition, Armstrong was in Aspen that weekend. One big contibution could easily explain the 75k.

So $75k is a bit less than 2 times an average day, that should be a big burst after all that free advertising in the news about Lance!
I thought that more people would have shown their support to Lance after a such day. No surprise that they used as reference the donation of the precedent day. Another white LIE.

That can only be a big fail for Lance and LieStrong in that situation.

 

[the big ring]

Someone linked to a different but similar interview, and I wanted to contrast what was said above with the new interview:

UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid

has no intention of appealing against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's decision
...
The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist
...
the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS
...
The reason the UCI is seeking the file is that we want to provide a timely response and not delay matters any further than necessary.
...
Should the reasoned decision and the case file come to the UCI within two weeks as he expects, McQuaid said they could be examined at the governing body's management committee on September 19-20
...
There is nothing new. There was no cover up in 2001 and we see no evidence to support such allegation," he said

New interview:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...30840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html

McQuaid said USADA’s decision to impose a life ban will be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport only if there is “serious reason” to do so, adding that the seven stripped Tour titles might never be reassigned.
...
“It does seem slightly unusual (the file hasn’t arrived),” McQuaid said. “Our only thoughts on it would be that maybe they didn’t have a full file or they don’t have a full file ... we are assuming they do have a full file because they have already announced a life ban on Lance Armstrong.”
...
“We don’t want to go to CAS necessarily on the merits of the case, but if we have to on jurisdiction we will do so,” McQuaid said.
...

It sounds like the same interview but man the reporting / statements are different.

 

[Jack Ruby]

Jack, I can't get the link to work. Any help? Thanks.

I always believed that that what LiveStrong.org claimed to raise on that day was orchestrated, whether or not it was real. So I am glad to see some investigative reporting going on about this.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/charity_in_down_cycle_bFiePYd99NWJBHqz9HLsnO

 

[LauraLyn]

Thanks for the link above, Jack.

Someone left a copy of De Standaard, September 8-9, 2012, on a train in Germany today. In it is a commentary by Rik Vanwalleghem: "Long Live the Vuelta." The full commentary is online by subscription (if someone can help): http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20120907_00288309&word=koers+is+sport

Here a quotation from the paper article:

"If we need to negate the results of all the competitions in which arguments and circumstances external to the sport had a deciding role in the outcome [he is not so much referring to doping here, but other sorts of events for which he gives this year's victory at the Olympics of Vinoukourov as an example], not much remains. Cycling is in its imitation of real life not as simple as running or swimming, in which he or she who runs or swims the fastest wins. In a complex situation like cycling, the strongest does not always win, but often the most cunning, most crooked, best acting, most efficient bluffer, best paid rider. Cycling competition is sport, plus Greek tragedy, Shakespeare, Hollywood, TV soap operas and everything we experience in our families, friendships, work environment, and neighborhood."

Given the last sentence, no wonder we have so much to discuss in The Clinic.

There is more in the article to stir discussion. And surely more one could say about Vanwalleghem.

 

[LauraLyn]

And now even the philosophers are weighing in:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...he-philosophy-of-making-bad-decisions/261669/

 

[No Quarterpounder]

Cnn

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, but I just ferkin love how clear Christine Brennan is in this CNN clip. Again, sorry if this has been posted before in one of the 13 million or so posts on LA... how would I know...

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/vide...ne-brennan-lance-armstrong.cnn?iref=allsearch

 

[python]

Has anyone seen a response from the spin machine re the uci debunking of the 600 test myth with 1/3 the real count?

 

[the big ring]

Has anyone seen a response from the spin machine re the uci debunking of the 600 test myth with 1/3 the real count?

JV?

Nothing in the news media yet. Laura Weislo retweeted FestinaGirls "THIS IS BIG NEWS" tweet and said - such sarcasm.

Irritating me no end that nothing is being said. A CN article has been posted as a summary from the same original article about McQuaid doing an amnesty *** covering exercise but nothing about the elephant in that article of 215 tests.

ffs.

 

[python]

JV?

Nothing in the news media yet. Laura Weislo retweeted FestinaGirls "THIS IS BIG NEWS" tweet and said - such sarcasm.

Irritating me no end that nothing is being said. A CN article has been posted as a summary from the same original article about McQuaid doing an amnesty *** covering exercise but nothing about the elephant in that article of 215 tests.

ffs.

I am very surprise too.

The only real worthy bit from the fat's mouth is met with a wall of silence..

I was inclined to think that was the uci freebie to usada to indicate a turn the position...but when I recall it coming of fats mouth, then I realize it could been a drunken slur