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

[thehog]

That is just ChrissE trying to stir things up

one
note
wonder

I am pretty sure Sheryl would be doing her happy thing with Armstrong had he not given her the boot
..it doesn't seem as if the doping bothered her until she was compelled to spill it...unlike Betsy who never played the quiet game

Sheryl did d'Huez in 89 minutes.

I'm starting to suspect her time.

Do you think she nailed a bag as well?

 

[mewmewmew13]

lolz

do you think she is now regretting this pic? posing for Lance....

 

[thehog]

lolz

do you think she is now regretting this pic? posing for Lance....

I think she's regretting the 29 on the back. Should have gone 32. Could have got the high cadence thing going.

She got used and spat out. Paraded Kik's kids all over the TV at the Tour.

God that was sickening.

Good times for Lance. Man why did he comeback?

 

[mewmewmew13]

she spins things the way she needs it...
no sympathy for her

flaunting Lance and his kids at the Tours was bad enough..
then she stood by her man and accepted a casual blood transfusion as just fine

now that he is damaged goods she pretends their relationship was nothing
..nothing to see here folks...move along

 

[MarkvW]

Guess what would happen to you if you saw a crime where the criminal saw you see him in the act and didn't say anything and it was found out later, guess what can happen to you if the criminal can prove you saw it and didn't say anything then.

I don't think that has ever happened in the whole history of the human race.

 

[Race Radio]

Betsy really should have gone directly to Hein Verbuggen with her info. He would have sorted it all out

 

[frenchfry]

In 2005 l'Equipe published clinical proof that Armstrong was a doper, not only this didn't stick but a few years later the UCI bent the rules to allow Armstrong to "come back" sooner than the rules allowed.

If Betsy or anyone else had have spoken up in that context, nothing would have happened except to kick start the vindictive destruction inflicted by Armstrong and his paid thugs.

Any talk today about doing the right thing is just so much BS.

 

[Cycle Chic]

...As for Crow. If doping was an issue for her, he would not have told her or their relationship would have ended quickly. Regardless she is not at fault.

Do you have proof of that ? she may have stood over him and said ' go on, do it, do it,...we need that new jet and I want a different house in Aspen '

We need a link Dr Mas

 

[Benotti69]

I wonder did Crow act as a courier for Armstrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you have proof of that ? she may have stood over him and said ' go on, do it, do it,...we need that new jet and I want a different house in Aspen '

We need a link Dr Mas

I was not trying to prove anything - so I do not have "proof".

However, I can certainly back up my opinion and since you asked so nicely, that I am perfectly willing to do

Armstrong met Crow in 2003. Here is the reasoned decision from USADA, it shows that Armstrong was doping from the mid 90's until the end of his career. As he was doping before they met in 2003, she can not be at fault.
This is an interview Armstrong did with talk show host Oprah Winfrey. In this interview Armstrong admits his doping and shows no remorse or regret for doping.

I certainly look forward to reading what you have that suggests she may have stood over and encouraged him to dope.

 

[TheEnoculator]

As much as having ethics is a sweet idea - you do realize that JV was taking EPO at the same race?

As for Crow. If doping was an issue for her, he would not have told her or their relationship would have ended quickly. Regardless she is not at fault.

I'm sorry, but that's BS. She's not a cyclist, she's not "involved" in pro cycling, so as an outsider, she should have the ability to see clearly what's right and wrong. The fact that she kept silent and defended the Uniballer all these years shows that she chose her relationship over ethics. She's as guilty as a armor vehicle robber got hit with a dye pack.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sorry, but that's BS. She's not a cyclist, she's not "involved" in pro cycling, so as an outsider, she should have the ability to see clearly what's right and wrong. The fact that she kept silent and defended the Uniballer all these years shows that she chose her relationship over ethics. She's as guilty as a armor vehicle robber got hit with a dye pack.

You are entitled to your opinion, but what has being a cyclist or involved to do with it? It is either right or wrong.

 

[Pandora]

Sheryl did d'Huez in 89 minutes.
I'm starting to suspect her time.

This reminds me of my second time up L'Alpe d'Huez.
I was there in 2004 during the Tour and heard that she climbed it in 87 minutes which is close enough to your information. And, well, I had to be faster

Thus when my friends and I started climbing it, beating her time was of utmost importance. And I made it in 80 minutes. Clean, I swear!

I saw her in vivo during the 2004 TdF MTT in Bourg d'Oisans. She was/still is of climber's build - very thin (I'm not that thin), and is an avid runner, so her endurance shouldn't have been questionable.

Do you think she nailed a bag as well?

I think her time is credible.

However, I also remember her circling around the Postal bus while Postal boys were warming up for the MTT. In one moment she opened a portable cool-box nearby and I remember I was half-expecting to see vials of some kind among coke bottles. Blood bags would have been a bit over the edge and I didn't think about that, but vials...

Well, it wouldn't have been surprise to me, even at that time. Rumors were there definitely.

 

[ChrisE]

I’ve never said Betsy was above criticism. I have in fact questioned on this forum why both she and Frankie remained silent for so long, knowing what they heard in that hospital room. But at least she laid it on the line to Frankie, the one rider she was in best position to influence, whereas Crow apparently completely accepted what LA was doing. And after Betsy finally was deposed, she was the target of enormous abuse that Crow did not have to endure.



Again, I'm focussing on Crow because she was the subject of recent posts. That doesn't mean I'm unaware or forgiving of others who also remained silent. I was particularly upset when I learned that JV had witnessed LA taking EPO was back at the 98 Vuelta. I know he would say that if he had spoken out then or any time after prior to the USADA investigation, nothing would have come of it, but sometimes actions should be based on ethics, not practicality.

I brought BA up to prove a point, how some of the clinic darlings get a pass on this subject and others get nothing but crickets in the clinic when equivalency is pointed out. I knew her name in reference to this would stir up the masses; mission accomplished. Even my buddy FF is flailing about, egged on by RR's deliberate obfuscation derailing my point, but in defense of FF he has a blind spot when it comes to her.

RR's post without quoting my post, thus making it easier to muddy up the thread, along with his recent whining in the mod thread about the same thing being done to him would seem to be ironic, but irony doesn't have a prejudiced agenda wrapped in a thin skin.

Moving on, me thinks your outrage towards anybody that knew about LA's PED use is not realistic. People make deliberate decisions with their well-being in mind, and it is only rarely that is not the case and in many cases they end up worse off in the end.

Why would BA start raising hell in 1998 or 99 and thus jeopardizing her husband's career and the well-being of those she cares about? Why would JV throw away his career in 98? Why would Crow interject herself into this situation, shunning a person she was in love with at the time while bringing who knows what type of derision towards her and her career?

Bring all this BS upon themselves, all because of LA doping in a bike race full of other dopers. How 'ethical' is it to do that to yourself in this situation? To put it in perspective we are not talking about life and death here, massive societal financial hardship, or catastrophic ruin to society by not speaking up.

I don't think righting that wrong rises to the level necessary to overcome other moral and financial obligations to yourself and to others around you. It's simple economic theory, where incentive plays the dominant role. The instigation of LA's downfall was for the same reason, when to spill on LA was more desirable to FL than his current position at the time.

I would have made the same decision each of them did inre to not telling on LA, and if you are in a personal position where you can make decisions solely based upon personal ethics without potential debilitating fallout then good for you. Most of us aren't that lucky, so we add up the positives and negatives at the bottom of the page and decide from there. Ethics are not as simple as you imply; there are other factors than just righting a wrong.

I should note I reply to your post for argument's sake under the assumption that these particular people really had a problem with his doping, which I doubt. That tends to put a damper on shame.

 

[Race Radio]

Yup, Betsy should have gone to Hein Verburggen in 1997. That would have fixed it. It's all Betsy's fault

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Yup, Betsy should have gone to Hein Verburggen in 1997. That would have fixed it. It's all Betsy's fault

Happy that we finally cleared that up.

I believe that a lifetime ban and the loss of all resuts should be the minimum sanction for Betsy.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I brought BA up to prove a point, how some of the clinic darlings get a pass on this subject and others get nothing but crickets in the clinic when equivalency is pointed out. I knew her name in reference to this would stir up the masses; mission accomplished. Even my buddy FF is flailing about, egged on by RR's deliberate obfuscation derailing my point, but in defense of FF he has a blind spot when it comes to her.

RR's post without quoting my post, thus making it easier to muddy up the thread, along with his recent whining in the mod thread about the same thing being done to him would seem to be ironic, but irony doesn't have a prejudiced agenda wrapped in a thin skin.

Moving on, me thinks your outrage towards anybody that knew about LA's PED use is not realistic. People make deliberate decisions with their well-being in mind, and it is only rarely that is not the case and in many cases they end up worse off in the end.

Why would BA start raising hell in 1998 or 99 and thus jeopardizing her husband's career and the well-being of those she cares about? Why would JV throw away his career in 98? Why would Crow interject herself into this situation, shunning a person she was in love with at the time while bringing who knows what type of derision towards her and her career?

Bring all this BS upon themselves, all because of LA doping in a bike race full of other dopers. How 'ethical' is it to do that to yourself in this situation? To put it in perspective we are not talking about life and death here, massive societal financial hardship, or catastrophic ruin to society by not speaking up.

I don't think righting that wrong rises to the level necessary to overcome other moral and financial obligations to yourself and to others around you. It's simple economic theory, where incentive plays the dominant role. The instigation of LA's downfall was for the same reason, when to spill on LA was more desirable to FL than his current position at the time.

I would have made the same decision each of them did inre to not telling on LA, and if you are in a personal position where you can make decisions solely based upon personal ethics without potential debilitating fallout then good for you. Most of us aren't that lucky, so we add up the positives and negatives at the bottom of the page and decide from there. Ethics are not as simple as you imply; there are other factors than just righting a wrong.

I should note I reply to your post for argument's sake under the assumption that these particular people really had a problem with his doping, which I doubt. That tends to put a damper on shame.

Except for the first part of this post where you engage in your usual round of chest-beating and congratulatory "I am so superior I have control of this conversation I am so clever".....
I actually agree with some of the rest.

 

[ChrisE]

Except for the first part of this post where you engage in your usual round of chest-beating and congratulatory "I am so superior I have control of this conversation I am so clever".....
I actually agree with some of the rest.

That's nice. Now run along.

 

[Christian]

Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell discuss their new book "Wheelmen: Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France and the greatest sports conspiracy ever" on the Colbert Report:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...r-10-2013/reed-albergotti---vanessa-o-connell

 

[Benotti69]

Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell discuss their new book "Wheelmen: Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France and the greatest sports conspiracy ever" on the Colbert Report:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...r-10-2013/reed-albergotti---vanessa-o-connell

only available USA.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

only available USA.

In Canada, go to comedychannel.ca

Then select Colbert Report.

Just watched it. Waste of time.

 

[Christian]

only available USA.

Really? Has always been available to me - wonder why

 

[MarkvW]

In 2005 l'Equipe published clinical proof that Armstrong was a doper, not only this didn't stick but a few years later the UCI bent the rules to allow Armstrong to "come back" sooner than the rules allowed.

If Betsy or anyone else had have spoken up in that context, nothing would have happened except to kick start the vindictive destruction inflicted by Armstrong and his paid thugs.

Any talk today about doing the right thing is just so much BS.

I don't think that is true at all after USADA assumed its responsibilities for dope testing. If Floyd or Levi or Zabriskie had gone to USADA earlier, then there would have been action earlier.

Before USADA assumed responsibilities, it would have taken a lot more effort, but even the UCI could not have withstood the negative publicity of ignoring the confession of a fellow doping conspirator. It would have been messy, but I don't think something as unprecedented as a bike rider doing the right thing, going to the authorities, and snitching his corrupt organization would be fore-doomed (but it definitely might have been, given the debased nature of the UCI).

I can't buy the idea that it is BS to suggest that Lance's teammates should have done the "right thing." Only the lure of very big bucks or the pressure of a federal criminal subpoena could get those corrupt co-conspirators to talk. They were dirtbags (some of whom may have reformed).

I agree with you as to Ms. Andreu or Ms. Crow. They're just bystanders in this sordid little pocket-drama.

The whole USPS team was filthy, from top to bottom. The UCI was filthy from the top down. Lance was the biggest tumor in a sick organism--and the sick organism continues on to this day.

 

[thehog]

I don't think that is true at all after USADA assumed its responsibilities for dope testing. If Floyd or Levi or Zabriskie had gone to USADA earlier, then there would have been action earlier.

Before USADA assumed responsibilities, it would have taken a lot more effort, but even the UCI could not have withstood the negative publicity of ignoring the confession of a fellow doping conspirator. It would have been messy, but I don't think something as unprecedented as a bike rider doing the right thing, going to the authorities, and snitching his corrupt organization would be fore-doomed (but it definitely might have been, given the debased nature of the UCI).

I can't buy the idea that it is BS to suggest that Lance's teammates should have done the "right thing." Only the lure of very big bucks or the pressure of a federal criminal subpoena could get those corrupt co-conspirators to talk. They were dirtbags (some of whom may have reformed).

I agree with you as to Ms. Andreu or Ms. Crow. They're just bystanders in this sordid little pocket-drama.

The whole USPS team was filthy, from top to bottom. The UCI was filthy from the top down. Lance was the biggest tumor in a sick organism--and the sick organism continues on to this day.

Mark your contributions are valuable.

I agree on all of this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think that is true at all after USADA assumed its responsibilities for dope testing. If Floyd or Levi or Zabriskie had gone to USADA earlier, then there would have been action earlier.

Before USADA assumed responsibilities, it would have taken a lot more effort, but even the UCI could not have withstood the negative publicity of ignoring the confession of a fellow doping conspirator. It would have been messy, but I don't think something as unprecedented as a bike rider doing the right thing, going to the authorities, and snitching his corrupt organization would be fore-doomed (but it definitely might have been, given the debased nature of the UCI).

I can't buy the idea that it is BS to suggest that Lance's teammates should have done the "right thing." Only the lure of very big bucks or the pressure of a federal criminal subpoena could get those corrupt co-conspirators to talk. They were dirtbags (some of whom may have reformed).

I agree with you as to Ms. Andreu or Ms. Crow. They're just bystanders in this sordid little pocket-drama.

The whole USPS team was filthy, from top to bottom. The UCI was filthy from the top down. Lance was the biggest tumor in a sick organism--and the sick organism continues on to this day.

USADA would have acted on Floyd's info - but even with that the chances of building a solid case would have been very difficult, without the assistance of the Feds.
JV and Garmin get panned but they did come forward and said they would co-operate within days of Landis confession. But none of them had first hand accounts of LAs doping within the SOL which was only waived when the full account of LAs deceit was known, which was reliant on the Feds work.

To the highlighted - even after LA was banned the UCI were still attempting to hinder the case by saying the had jurisdiction. They would have done nothing to assist.