Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[del1962]

Question to FGLM

So why did George Hincapie testify?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Question to FGLM

So why did George Hincapie testify?

As far as I have read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

''At first, though, Hincapie was prompted to provide information about the doping on Armstrong’s teams when he received a subpoena to testify to the grand jury in the now-defunct federal investigation of Armstrong for doping-related crimes, said two people involved in the investigation. Instead of testifying before the grand jury, Hincapie cooperated and gave sworn statements.''

Must be a legal thing. Bet the US legal fellas here know more on this subject than me.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/lance-best-bro-implicates-doping-scandal-article-1.1179830
''“About two years ago, I was approached by U.S. federal investigators, and more recently by USADA, and asked to tell of my personal experience in these matters. I would have been much more comfortable talking only about myself, but understood that I was obligated to tell the truth about everything I knew. So that is what I did,” Hincapie said in the statement.''

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just read, u can do it.

Read the mod warning - you can do it too.

At herself. Getting herself involved in drug trafficking. The argument used that she wanted to clean up cycling around 2003 because things were getting out of hand are ridiculous, were her eyes closed during the hardcore 1996 till 2000 epo years? No deaths in those days? Or before? Or the carreers of others who were shortened to what soigneurs/doctors/ds's enabled?

Look, she did good, all the brave souls who testified did good, but when you analyse all the statements it is just filled with anger and hypocracy. Read Tom Danielson's first lines: ''I was coached by Rick Crawford''; tadaa. Rick Crawford with his revolutionairy training techniques? Yep, and yet he only found out on Fassa Bortolo and of course the Euro Scene cycling was full of doping? Please. Get him on perjory.

Read every statement carefully and you will see anger an hypocracy. It is a perfect character scetch for the person Lance Armstrong, as I said before, he would do well on Goldman Sachs. And that is not a compliment. Guilty for being an a-hole.

All I'm saying.

Wont be making friends with that, but hey.

So, basically you just read the affidavits (which have been out almost a year) and are applying what people wrote in 2012 to a much earlier time?

Not very tasty - so I will decline.

 

[del1962]

As far as I have read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

''At first, though, Hincapie was prompted to provide information about the doping on Armstrong’s teams when he received a subpoena to testify to the grand jury in the now-defunct federal investigation of Armstrong for doping-related crimes, said two people involved in the investigation. Instead of testifying before the grand jury, Hincapie cooperated and gave sworn statements.''

Must be a legal thing. Bet the US legal fellas here know more on this subject than me.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/lance-best-bro-implicates-doping-scandal-article-1.1179830
''“About two years ago, I was approached by U.S. federal investigators, and more recently by USADA, and asked to tell of my personal experience in these matters. I would have been much more comfortable talking only about myself, but understood that I was obligated to tell the truth about everything I knew. So that is what I did,” Hincapie said in the statement.''

What I mean is that you said the testimonies where full of anger and hypocracy, I can't see any anger in GH's, to me it reads very matter of fact

 

[Berzin]

At this stage of the game, it's useless pointing the finger at the bit players. I understand it's a favorite tactic by the Armstrong apologists, but it's been debunked a while ago, so give it a rest.

The conspiracy has become obvious, and the little people caught in the middle, and I do mean little, had but one choice-go along or be ostracized, lose your job and run the risk of getting such a bad reference that no other team would hire you.

Therein lies the big difference between people like Armstrong and others like O'Reilly.

The subsequent lawsuits will hopefully ferret out the big fish, who through cynical manipulation and corruption allowed this atmosphere to flourish. It was the only way a rider like Armstrong would have won anything, when the deck is clearly stacked in his favor before the race even started. That much has been obvious too for quite a while.

Vehemently blaming the bit players for Armstrong's downfall has been debunked and stomped completely to death, so stop bringing it up as a distraction of the main issues at hand going forward, which are the lawsuits he's facing.

If this isn't clear enough for anyone, a little vacation then may be in order.

 

[ElChingon]

At this stage of the game, it's useless pointing the finger at the bit players. I understand it's a favorite tactic by the Armstrong apologists, but it's been debunked a while ago, so give it a rest.

The conspiracy has become obvious, and the little people caught in the middle, and I do mean little, had but one choice-go along or be ostracized, lose your job and run the risk of getting such a bad reference that no other team would hire you.

Therein lies the big difference between people like Armstrong and others like O'Reilly.

The subsequent lawsuits will hopefully ferret out the big fish, who through cynical manipulation and corruption allowed this atmosphere to flourish. It was the only way a rider like Armstrong would have won anything, when the deck is clearly stacked in his favor before the race even started. That much has been obvious too for quite a while.

Vehemently blaming the bit players for Armstrong's downfall has been debunked and stomped completely to death, so stop bringing it up as a distraction of the main issues at hand going forward, which are the lawsuits he's facing.

If this isn't clear enough for anyone, a little vacation then may be in order.

Your fault in there is that there are no little players, it took everyone involved to make it happen. It took one to crush it as well, so no one is a little part of it but a part of it or not a part of it. The downside is those who were allowed to benefit in any way and not face real sanctions or equal sanctions for the same shenanigans.

Some people see them as small/little players but they played for a reason and that was to benefit in some way, if they were not smart enough to gain equally is really their fault(s) not the fault of one. All it would take was a picture, a recording, a piece of proof, but no one did that is also their downfall.

 

[darwin553]

Been re-reading those affadavits, what an angry mob of losers. Yeah, Armstrong is a bone idled w@nker and not a nice person but this is ridiculous. Who forced Emma 'O Reilly to stay on that doping team of 1997? Yeah, she was mistreated by Postal and Armstrong - really not cool - but hey, why didnt she walk away when she knew the gang was shooting up? Was it her anti - doping stance what made her contact David Walsh? No, she was angry. Same for all, or allmost all of the affadavits.

What is she going to do? Just move to another team - I'm sure Lance would have allowed that

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

At this stage of the game, it's useless pointing the finger at the bit players. I understand it's a favorite tactic by the Armstrong apologists, but it's been debunked a while ago, so give it a rest.

The conspiracy has become obvious, and the little people caught in the middle, and I do mean little, had but one choice-go along or be ostracized, lose your job and run the risk of getting such a bad reference that no other team would hire you.

Therein lies the big difference between people like Armstrong and others like O'Reilly.

The subsequent lawsuits will hopefully ferret out the big fish, who through cynical manipulation and corruption allowed this atmosphere to flourish. It was the only way a rider like Armstrong would have won anything, when the deck is clearly stacked in his favor before the race even started. That much has been obvious too for quite a while.

Vehemently blaming the bit players for Armstrong's downfall has been debunked and stomped completely to death, so stop bringing it up as a distraction of the main issues at hand going forward, which are the lawsuits he's facing.

If this isn't clear enough for anyone, a little vacation then may be in order.

Why did you delete my posts? And really, do not try and insult me with that Armstrong apologist line. Because if one does not share your Armstrong obsession one must be an apologist? Is that the deal? Dont try to walk the George Bush jr line with me.

 

[Bannockburn]

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/61571214/

More great reporting by Selena. He is really screwed

Do you ever get the feeling that Lance's judgement has been highly deluded by his legal counsel to the point he's spent the last year acting in a manner not consistent with his own best interests? The guy might be a lot of things, but he isn't stupid and he does not act in an uncalculated manner.

Seems he has dug his hole much deeper than it needed to get, and while pride and stubbornness certainly are factors as to why he may have listened to them, I can't help but think his legal team has not looked out for its client's best interests.

Unless of course they're just after more billable hours. Then it all makes sense.

 

[gooner]

I see that Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell have a book coming out on the downfall of Lance.

Anyone know the actual date when it's published?

 

[Race Radio]

Your fault in there is that there are no little players, it took everyone involved to make it happen. It took one to crush it as well, so no one is a little part of it but a part of it or not a part of it. The downside is those who were allowed to benefit in any way and not face real sanctions or equal sanctions for the same shenanigans.

Some people see them as small/little players but they played for a reason and that was to benefit in some way, if they were not smart enough to gain equally is really their fault(s) not the fault of one. All it would take was a picture, a recording, a piece of proof, but no one did that is also their downfall.

Emma should have equal sanctions as Lance? Really?

There is little of substance in Emma's affidavit. We already know her speaking out would have done nothing. When Walsh included it in his book almost 10 years ago it had little effect.

Pretending that Emma speaking out would have stopped things is frankly absurd. Always easy to sit on the sidelines and cheer for people to jump into the Armstrong wood chipper but most put in a similar position would have done the same thing

 

[Race Radio]

I see that Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell have a book coming out on the downfall of Lance.

Anyone know the actual date when it's published?

I think it is next month. They are great reporters, I expect it to be one of the better books on the subject

 

[Race Radio]

There is little of substance in Emma's affidavit. We already know her speaking out would have done nothing. When Walsh included it in his book almost 10 years ago it had little effect.

Pretending that Emma speaking out would have stopped things is frankly absurd. Always easy to sit on the sidelines and cheer for people to jump into the Armstrong wood chipper but most put in a similar position would have done the same thing

 

[gooner]

I think it is next month. They are great reporters, I expect it to be one of the better books on the subject

Thanks. That's why I would be interested in it as I have read some of their articles during all this and they have done some great reporting on it between the two of them. I'd say it would be well worth a purchase. I'm going to keep an eye out for it.

 

[gooner]

Sheryl still remembers Lance fondly.

She tells the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, "It probably sounds really insulting but this is one of those 'I-don't-give-a-f**k moments; I don't think about him. It's a nuisance when I'm asked about him, because they weren't the happiest days.
"People still attach me to him, and it's gross... I don't really want to talk about that."

http://www.contactmusic.com/story/sheryl-crow-i-hate-questions-about-ex-lance-armstrong_3881760?

 

[frenchfry]

There is little of substance in Emma's affidavit. We already know her speaking out would have done nothing. When Walsh included it in his book almost 10 years ago it had little effect.

Pretending that Emma speaking out would have stopped things is frankly absurd. Always easy to sit on the sidelines and cheer for people to jump into the Armstrong wood chipper but most put in a similar position would have done the same thing

So true. If l'Equipe's revelations of the 1999 positives barely dented the Armstrong myth, hard to see how what a lowly soigneur (no offence to Emma) had to say could have much effect.

I also believe that it wasn't just Floyd but rather a convergence of information and events that led to Armstrong's eventual downfall. The comeback was the key, without that he would likely still be marketing cancer to line his pockets.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is little of substance in Emma's affidavit. We already know her speaking out would have done nothing. When Walsh included it in his book almost 10 years ago it had little effect.

Pretending that Emma speaking out would have stopped things is frankly absurd. Always easy to sit on the sidelines and cheer for people to jump into the Armstrong wood chipper but most put in a similar position would have done the same thing

But...but....but ....
Even though Emma never saw the doping directly and wasn't on the medical side she could have still whipped out her iPhone and taken fotos of everything.
On her iPad she could also record all the confessions as well as edited the videos, she could even have put in a backtrack of a Sheryl Crowe song. It's very very easy.

She could then have sent all that information wirelessly to the proper authorities like that nice Mr Verbruggen who undoubtly would have been shocked at the revelation and would have moved swiftly to open an anti-doping violation against the Lance.

 

[D-Queued]

But...but....but ....
Even though Emma never saw the doping directly and wasn't on the medical side she could have still whipped out her iPhone and taken fotos of everything.
On her iPad she could also record all the confessions as well as edited the videos, she could even have put in a backtrack of a Sheryl Crowe song. It's very very easy.

She could then have sent all that information wirelessly to the proper authorities like that nice Mr Verbruggen who undoubtly would have been shocked at the revelation and would have moved swiftly to open an anti-doping violation against the Lance.

I came away similar to RR on this. And then was confused as to why.

There are three issues:

1. On a standalone basis, is this the smoking gun?
2. This appeared to be more of a summary of her testimony. Are there further details that are included in her testimony? How did she respond to Q&A?
3. Were there any surprises?

On further reflection, there was a lot of substance to what Emma had to say.

But, that substance is diluted because in and of itself the evidence is more supportive of other evidence and there were no shocking new revelations. It would definitely have been helpful if there was Q&A.

*Actually one revelation was that Emma did not want to work with Lance when she first joined. That deserves further exploration.

Perhaps one thing it does underscore is the extent of the Armstrong vendetta for someone who had a minor role. Emma was one of the most extreme examples of the Armstrong hate machine's negative excess.

That her 'matter-of-fact' approach is in such contrast to the depths of Lance's vindictiveness is what is really stands out.

If Emma got a lawsuit, her career damaged, and was called a wh*re on multiple occasions for just being honest, imagine how Lance might react if someone called him a bad name, pointed their finger at him or simply shook their head.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...The guy might be a lot of things, but he isn't stupid and he does not act in an uncalculated manner....

Nooo. Dumb as a brick. Unrepentant and unchanged at this point in time. The legal tactics haven't changed either.

Except now, he doesn't have Tailwind/USAC doing all the work of setting him up for his "I'm sorry that you don't believe" B.S.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I came away similar to RR on this. And then was confused as to why.

There are three issues:

1. On a standalone basis, is this the smoking gun?
2. This appeared to be more of a summary of her testimony. Are there further details that are included in her testimony? How did she respond to Q&A?
3. Were there any surprises?

On further reflection, there was a lot of substance to what Emma had to say.

But, that substance is diluted because in and of itself the evidence is more supportive of other evidence and there were no shocking new revelations. It would definitely have been helpful if there was Q&A.

*Actually one revelation was that Emma did not want to work with Lance when she first joined. That deserves further exploration.

Perhaps one thing it does underscore is the extent of the Armstrong vendetta for someone who had a minor role. Emma was one of the most extreme examples of the Armstrong hate machine's negative excess.

That her 'matter-of-fact' approach is in such contrast to the depths of Lance's vindictiveness is what is really stands out.

If Emma got a lawsuit, her career damaged, and was called a wh*re on multiple occasions for just being honest, imagine how Lance might react if someone called him a bad name, pointed their finger at him or simply shook their head.

Dave.

I do hope you know my reply to RR was sarcasm, I wasn't even trying to be subtle - if it was fake tan it would glow orange.


To be clear - the catching of LA was a collective.
All the pieces mattered.

 

[D-Queued]

I do hope you know my reply to RR was sarcasm, I wasn't even trying to be subtle - if it was fake tan it would glow orange.


To be clear - the catching of LA was a collective.
All the pieces mattered.

Sarcasm or no, good points.

Yes, all the pieces mattered. And, if some new witness were to come forward (e.g. Motoman, Kirstin, Carmichael) they could prove to matter even more.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

I also believe that it wasn't just Floyd but rather a convergence of information and events that led to Armstrong's eventual downfall. The comeback was the key, without that he would likely still be marketing cancer to line his pockets.

but not the dichotomy.

Armstrong as TdF winner, was always marketing cancer. It is what made him a 100million dollar man. A Lemond iteration of 7 wins woulda been a 20 million dollar man with the biggest contract his asphalt contract on USPS. Nike would not had a bar of that.

In Bill Stapleton's words, the TdF win was the apotheosis (for an atheist) for the cancer brand of Armstrong.

cancer was not the apotheosis of the cycling brand of Armstrong.

Armstrong sold cancer as a commodity to America. something Susan G Komen could never do.

Armstrong hocked himself out. "Hope Rides Again". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

 

[Berzin]

Your fault in there is that there are no little players, it took everyone involved to make it happen. It took one to crush it as well, so no one is a little part of it but a part of it or not a part of it. The downside is those who were allowed to benefit in any way and not face real sanctions or equal sanctions for the same shenanigans.

Some people see them as small/little players but they played for a reason and that was to benefit in some way, if they were not smart enough to gain equally is really their fault(s) not the fault of one. All it would take was a picture, a recording, a piece of proof, but no one did that is also their downfall.

Replace the bit players and nothing changes. They, with the exception of George Hincapie, were unable to enrich themselves the way the top dogs did.

You think Levi Leipheimer isn't regretting what transpired? Does he have enough money to retire on a bed of cash like Hincapie? Don't think so.

Donestiques and masseurs matter very little in this story. It is what took place from the top down that is at the heart of the scandal. Replace them with anyone else and nothing changes. Replace Armstrong, Bruyneel or Ferrari and you'll have a very different story.

You can waste your time twisting it into a pretzel for the sake of being a contrarian, but your logic is flawed.

 

[blackcat]

Replace the bit players and nothing changes. They, with the exception of George Hincapie, were unable to enrich themselves the way the top dogs did.

You think Levi Leipheimer isn't regretting what transpired? Does he have enough money to retire on a bed of cash like Hincapie? Don't think so.

Donestiques and masseurs matter very little in this story. It is what took place from the top down that is at the heart of the scandal. Replace them with anyone else and nothing changes. Replace Armstrong, Bruyneel or Ferrari and you'll have a very different story.

You can waste your time twisting it into a pretzel for the sake of being a contrarian, but your logic is flawed.

but you can replace Armstrong, Hog, and Ferrari.

Just put Cecchini, Saiz, Godefrot, Fuentes, Beloki, Ullrich.

in this case, the American and the machinery are mere cyphers.

See: Usain Bolt and his entourage. Ok, an American 100m sprinter may have to be more careful, and instead of 9.6 run 9.75 to win Olympic gold and WRs. But essentially, still the same as Bolt, just with a different name, flying under a different banner

 

[D-Queued]

but you can replace Armstrong, Hog, and Ferrari.

Just put Cecchini, Saiz, Godefrot, Fuentes, Beloki, Ullrich.

in this case, the American and the machinery are mere cyphers.

See: Usain Bolt and his entourage. Ok, an American 100m sprinter may have to be more careful, and instead of 9.6 run 9.75 to win Olympic gold and WRs. But essentially, still the same as Bolt, just with a different name, flying under a different banner

What are you saying?

Bolt is about to get diagnosed with Cancer, and then will take up cycling?

Dave.