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

[D-Queued]

Whatever. I am in no mood to argue with you and your posts that require interpretation between the lines.

I read the other day that our old buddy Bill Hue is in the middle of the Kimmage fund. I guess that is a step up from being a shill for FFF.

Hi Chris,

No problem. There was definitely some snark in my original remark - and you can dismiss all of the dialog based upon that.

On Mr. Hue. I did notice that, and did a double take.

How did we end up being on the same side? When is he going to give an admission to USADA?

Life is crazy.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No dispute, but not relevant to the discussion.

Him looking at his position now or in January 2013 when that interview took place, and saying "gee, I wish I would have done it differently" proves that he was offered a deal in reduction in sanctions in June of 2012 for talking???

Him saying on Oprah that they showed him all the evidence is not backed up by facts in the public domain, unless you want to show me where I missed that. I think he was just babbling in that disaster of an interview, which I am on record here as calling him a dumbass for doing.

Nobody is disputing that USADA asked him to come in and 'cooperate'. He is not disputing that. He is noting the terms of that cooperation, and how it contrasted to what the others got.

"Got" is the key word - and at odds with LAs premise (that you swallow) about being offered the "same deal".

We shall ignore for the moment that he was sanctioned for a lot more than others, (so seeking the 'same deal' for differing charges is straight away fallacious) and pretend that all were caught for the same violations.

What deal were the others "offered"?
We know what the riders sanctioned got, but was there an offer?

I know you are not American (with your perceptive posts in the politics thread, which I enjoyed reading), so I understand the American position on rights of the accused vs Europe for example may cause a different mindset here. I have had this discussion many times before on cycling forums.

I do not find it incredulous or asinine that somebody would reject coming in and spilling their guts in an adversarial situation without certain guarantees. Of course alternatively he was never going to fight it because the truth would come out, but that is not the point.

Yet that is exactly what Garmin (a US team!) publicly requested its riders to do just after Floyds emails leaked without knowing what penalties or sanctions lay ahead.

 

[ChrisE]

Hi Chris,

No problem. There was definitely some snark in my original remark - and you can dismiss all of the dialog based upon that.

On Mr. Hue. I did notice that, and did a double take.

How did we end up being on the same side? When is he going to give an admission to USADA?

Life is crazy.

Dave.

We were always on the same side, and we are even on the same side when it comes to LA's doping and his propensity to lie.

Where we differ is that I think he is a symptom, and not the ailment. I believe I wrote upthread again, after I have said it many times, I feel there were many underhanded things in cycling over the years and even recently. Tygart implies that in his interview. A good example of that is AC's potential cover up.

There is infinite incentive for the powers to cover up doping than to expose it in all sports, and saying LA had an advantage in that system over others I find ludicrous. Feeling sorry for and calling people like TH victims, and cheering people like FL winning millions after the crap he has pulled borders on pathetically unethical. All glossed over because LA is an *******.

I separate his personality from all of that and his personal issues when dealing with others, and realize the cesspool for what it is. I don't believe you do, and spin it as much as possible to make him out worse than he is within the sport. I remember reading a post from you months ago about how you liked Basso, the 'attempted' to dope Basso, lying to our faces. Why you have this dichotomy fueling your ire towards one person when it comes to the sport itself, I don't know.

 

[D-Queued]

We were always on the same side, and we are even on the same side when it comes to LA's doping and his propensity to lie.

Where we differ is that I think he is a symptom, and not the ailment. I believe I wrote upthread again, after I have said it many times, I feel there were many underhanded things in cycling over the years and even recently. Tygart implies that in his interview. A good example of that is AC's potential cover up.

There is infinite incentive for the powers to cover up doping than to expose it in all sports, and saying LA had an advantage in that system over others I find ludicrous. Feeling sorry for and calling people like TH victims, and cheering people like FL winning millions after the crap he has pulled borders on pathetically unethical. All glossed over because LA is an *******.

I separate his personality from all of that and his personal issues when dealing with others, and realize the cesspool for what it is. I don't believe you do, and spin it as much as possible to make him out worse than he is within the sport. I remember reading a post from you months ago about how you liked Basso, the 'attempted' to dope Basso, lying to our faces. Why you have this dichotomy fueling your ire towards one person when it comes to the sport itself, I don't know.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

WE = (You and Me) + Bill Hue

How did WE end up on the same side? Or, how did we (=you and me) end up on the same side as Bill?

Crazy.

On the rest, my opinion (just my opinion!) has always been that doping cannot be corrected without addressing Lance. Even then, I am not sure it can be completely cured.

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

"Got" is the key word - and at odds with LAs premise (that you swallow) about being offered the "same deal".

We shall ignore for the moment that he was sanctioned for a lot more than others, (so seeking the 'same deal' for differing charges is straight away fallacious) and pretend that all were caught for the same violations.

What deal were the others "offered"?
We know what the riders sanctioned got, but was there an offer?




Yet that is exactly what Garmin (a US team!) publicly requested its riders to do just after Floyds emails leaked without knowing what penalties or sanctions lay ahead.

If you have some evidence of what he was offered to cooperate then present it. I never said he should have been offered the same, nor did I even offer an opinion if he should have been offered anything at all.

If you have evidence of what was discussed with others, along with the timeline, in terms of sanction reduction within the course of the investigation then present it. That link means shyt.

If you want to contradict the reason I replied to this thread, to put his answer in the interview in context, then present it.

When you do, I will reply. Pedantic babbling doesn't count as a reply.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you have some evidence of what he was offered to cooperate then present it. I never said he should have been offered the same, nor did I even offer an opinion if he should have been offered anything at all.

If you have evidence of what was discussed with others, along with the timeline, in terms of sanction reduction within the course of the investigation then present it. That link means shyt.

If you want to contradict the reason I replied to this thread, to put his answer in the interview in context, then present it.

When you do, I will reply. Pedantic babbling doesn't count as a reply.

This is simple - to continue to claim that LA was not given the same deal, offer or whatever else you wish to call it - then you must show (links, rumours, whatever you wish) that there was indeed an "offer" made to people before they gave their statements.

All you have offered is the statement from Armstrong - which does not amount to much.

 

[ChrisE]

This is simple - to continue to claim that LA was not given the same deal, offer or whatever else you wish to call it - then you must show (links, rumours, whatever you wish) that there was indeed an "offer" made to people before they gave their statements.

All you have offered is the statement from Armstrong - which does not amount to much.

I don't 'claim' anything, and I don't claim to make up any names to call anything. I have aversion as you know to your BS discussion tactics and rarely have any type of prolonged discussion with you, and if you want to continue this discussion feel free to knock off the lying.

You provided a link showing Garmin said to cooperate, so what? I can turn it right back around to you and say you should provide further links proving there wasn't an offer. This is what you do; flipping it around and playing chicken and egg, impossible to prove one way or the other, and clog up threads.

I have no intention of searching for anything for you that doesn't exist in the public sphere. Nobody knows what went on behind closed doors at what time, and I offer no opinion on that other than 'we don't know'.

LA did the 'claiming' in his interview. It's there in black and white, in plain English. I offer no opinion of his claims, only the letter showing no deal was offered which at least publicly supports what he is saying. Whether he should or shouldn't have been offered a deal to talk, or whether that would coincide with how others were treated, is not the point. I will not play your game and move 'the point' to stimulate your jollies.

Admittedly, I don't know why the VN interviewer didn't follow up clarifying because the question was about reduced sanctions right now for talking, not last year before the charging letter. The link to the letter does nothing to refute what LA says about reduced sanctions at the time, further adding to the bazaar exchange. Maybe the VN interviewer needs to be drug tested.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I took it no way. Again, I am just talking about what he said in the VN interview, in its context, and providing you with what you asked while asking the same in return.

No doubt he lies about a lot of things, and I admitted upthread that even if they did enlighten him or offer him a deal I doubted he would have taken it at the time with his mindset. He can look back 20/20 all he wants on Oprah but hindsight is all it is.

I found the June 8 letter to USADA online earlier. I cannot believe somebody who claims to be a professional would write something so inflammatory, disrespectful, and adversarial. The fact he pays those lawyers as much as he did/does and they produce some garbage like that while making many times more than the common man is pathetic.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577465021326477022

The tone of that letter extrapolated over his career is an illustration of why he is in the position he is in. He has gotten bad advice, poor representation, and mixed in with his hubris he has only the mirror to blame.

I too would like to know if he was offered a deal but it doesn't appear to be that way. Like you say, it doesn't matter now.

Offering specific things in a letter has the appearance of a contract, and only a fool would offer anything prior to hearing what the other party is willing to spill when they are in the dominant position.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't 'claim' anything, and I don't claim to make up any names to call anything. I have aversion as you know to your BS discussion tactics and rarely have any type of prolonged discussion with you, and if you want to continue this discussion feel free to knock off the lying.

You provided a link showing Garmin said to cooperate, so what? I can turn it right back around to you and say you should provide further links proving there wasn't an offer. This is what you do; flipping it around and playing chicken and egg, impossible to prove one way or the other, and clog up threads.

I have no intention of searching for anything for you that doesn't exist in the public sphere. Nobody knows what went on behind closed doors at what time, and I offer no opinion on that other than 'we don't know'.

LA did the 'claiming' in his interview. It's there in black and white, in plain English. I offer no opinion of his claims, only the letter showing no deal was offered which at least publicly supports what he is saying. Whether he should or shouldn't have been offered a deal to talk, or whether that would coincide with how others were treated, is not the point. I will not play your game and move 'the point' to stimulate your jollies.

Admittedly, I don't know why the VN interviewer didn't follow up clarifying because the question was about reduced sanctions right now for talking, not last year before the charging letter. The link to the letter does nothing to refute what LA says about reduced sanctions at the time, further adding to the bazaar exchange. Maybe the VN interviewer needs to be drug tested.

Hi Chris,
That is a long response from someone who has an "aversion" with my "BS discussion tactics".

Ok, LA 'claimed' something - but why do you accept it as factual or accurate?
And then request others to back up their info.

This was your earlier post:

You have no way of knowing that, of course. Besides, that makes no sense. Give me a deal so I will come in and spill on others??? What was his liability in that scenario? And in June 2012.

In context of the VN interview, he speaks about others being offered deals which include deferred or shortened sentences with the implication being he was not offered the same thing. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

....so why are you requesting "evidence" to the contrary of something that you has yet to be shown as factual or accurate?

 

[ChrisE]

Offering specific things in a letter has the appearance of a contract, and only a fool would offer anything prior to hearing what the other party is willing to spill when they are in the dominant position.

Immunity in exchange for testimony is done all the time. How formal is that?

 

[Cobblestoned]

People have to consider that LA had a lot more to lose than all the others combined.
Same about der Ulle. Not everyone understands, because it's too complicated.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...saying LA had an advantage in that system over others I find ludicrous.

I can't let this one go:

Yeah, those suppressed positives, ignored red-hot bio-passport data, the UCI, his home federation USAC attempting to shutdown USADA's sanction happens to doped cyclists all the time. All the time I tell you!

In fact, I'm registering as a Pro right now for the Tour Down Under. No bio-passport? No problem! I'm riding "for free" too.

Letters from the UCI hastily written to 60 minutes about how a retired rider was always clean. The interview from the Executive Overlord Verbruggen defending the guy never ever ever ever never happened either. (or something like that)

Yeah, no special treatment for Wonderboy. Looking back I was wrong. What was I thinking! rolleyes:

 

[ChrisE]

Hi Chris,
That is a long response from someone who has an "aversion" with my "BS discussion tactics".

Ok, LA 'claimed' something - but why do you accept it as factual or accurate?
And then request others to back up their info.

This was your earlier post:

....so why are you requesting "evidence" to the contrary of something that you has yet to be shown as factual or accurate?

I have an aversion to your infinite do-loops, and your lying, which in turn results in me not getting into too many discussions with you. I stated my position on that and decided to continue for now, after your last post was nut just a bunch of pedantic static. You're welcome.

I say there is nothing in the public domain that contradicts his claim. I do not say it is factual. The only thing we have is this, and when somebody wants to jam that I ask them to back it up, or just say "IMO" and leave it at that. Don't come at me with absolutes pulled from your rectum without qualifiers.

Again, I offer no opinion on this because I don't know what went down behind doors, and I offer no opinion on what he should or should not have been offered. I have been consistent here. You just can't help trying to personalize the argument, can you?

 

[ChrisE]

I can't let this one go:

Yeah, those suppressed positives, ignored red-hot bio-passport data, the UCI, his home federation USAC attempting to shutdown USADA's sanction happens to doped cyclists all the time. All the time I tell you!

In fact, I'm registering as a Pro right now for the Tour Down Under. No bio-passport? No problem! I'm riding "for free" too.

Letters from the UCI hastily written to 60 minutes about how a retired rider was always clean. The interview from the Executive Overlord Verbruggen defending the guy never ever ever ever never happened either. (or something like that)

Yeah, no special treatment for Wonderboy. Looking back I was wrong. What was I thinking! rolleyes:

Sorry you have different opinion than me. Hope you sleep well tonight. I will.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have an aversion to your infinite do-loops, and your lying, which in turn results in me not getting into too many discussions with you. I stated my position on that and decided to continue for now, after your last post was nut just a bunch of pedantic static. You're welcome.

I say there is nothing in the public domain that contradicts his claim. I do not say it is factual. The only thing we have is this, and when somebody wants to jam that I ask them to back it up, or just say "IMO" and leave it at that. Don't come at me with absolutes pulled from your rectum without qualifiers.

Again, I offer no opinion on this because I don't know what went down behind doors, and I offer no opinion on what he should or should not have been offered. I have been consistent here. You just can't help trying to personalize the argument, can you?

But I gave you the link to what Garmin posted. There is no waiting for an offer or inducement. That contradicts his claim.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Immunity in exchange for testimony is done all the time. How formal is that?

Nobody offers immunity prior to hearing what the criminal is offering to tell unless you are in a grand jury. The USADA was in the position to already know what Lance was going to tell them anyway. They already had the story. Lance could have gone in at any time and told his story; he didn't have to wait. But Lance was still lying right up until Oprah.

Sorry, you can like his credibility when he says he was not offered the same deal, but you are in a short line.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nobody offers immunity prior to hearing what the criminal is offering to tell. And the final deals are always done in writing. The USADA was in the position to already know what Lance was going to tell them anyway. They already had the story. Lance could have gone in at any time and told his story; he didn't have to wait. But Lance was still lying right up until Oprah.

Sorry, you can like his credibility when he says he was not offered the same deal, but you are in a short line.

And USADA could have just written up the charge letter.

The simple fact that USADA wrote to LAs legal people instead of just charging him shows they were obviously open to some sort of deal.
Rather than admit LA took the gamble (and his legal team the $$) of thwarting USADA in Court.

 

[ChrisE]

But I gave you the link to what Garmin posted. There is no waiting for an offer or inducement. That contradicts his claim.

And my wife asked me last night to take out the trash and move some stuff upstairs. I didn't do it until today. That tree in the forest...does it make a noise when it falls when nobody around, or not? Hickory dickory dock, green eggs and ham, I know you are but what am I, dynamite monkey, who farted, y'all? etc.

I already addressed that about 500 rotations ago, so what is your point while we ride the rollercoaster? Nevermind. Goodbye until next time.

 

[Merckx index]

You asked me for evidence that he wasn't offered the same deal in reduction of sanctions the others were given. I stated the letter linked in the VN article says nothing about a reduction in sanctions for cooperation; it just says 'come in and cooperate'. I am also unaware of any other evidence that says "if you cooperate, this is the deal".

I'm not going to search for the link now, but a while back, I think in Jan. or Feb., Tygart was quoted as saying that if LA had come in and spoken to USADA, he would have kept most of his TDF titles, and would have been looking at a relatively short ban, certainly no more than two years, if that.

Of course, you can argue that Tygart can say this after the fact, when we have no proof that this is what he would have done. But remember that USADA's case against LA was always weak on the SOL issue. If LA had chosen to fight them, many legal analysts think he might have prevailed on this, so only 2005 and maybe 2004 would have been vulnerable. Given this weakness in their hand, it sounds reasonable to me that USADA would have made an offer to LA to keep some of his titles and accept a far less than lifetime ban.

Again, as you well know, before the reasoned decision, LA was considered untouchable. Many others had tried to take him down, and failed. To get any sanctions against him at all would have been considered a huge victory for Tygart and USADA. I think they would have been very satisfied with an admission of doping and a loss of a couple of titles. They might not even have cared about a ban, since he was out of cycling at the time.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm not going to search for the link now, but a while back, I think in Jan. or Feb., Tygart was quoted as saying that if LA had come in and spoken to USADA, he would have kept most of his TDF titles, and would have been looking at a relatively short ban, certainly no more than two years, if that.

Of course, you can argue that Tygart can say this after the fact, when we have no proof that this is what he would have done. But remember that USADA's case against LA was always weak on the SOL issue. If LA had chosen to fight them, many legal analysts think he might have prevailed on this, so only 2005 and maybe 2004 would have been vulnerable. Given this weakness in their hand, it sounds reasonable to me that USADA would have made an offer to LA to keep some of his titles and accept a far less than lifetime ban.

Again, as you well know, before the reasoned decision, LA was considered untouchable. Many others had tried to take him down, and failed. To get any sanctions against him at all would have been considered a huge victory for Tygart and USADA. I think they would have been very satisfied with an admission of doping and a loss of a couple of titles. They might not even have cared about a ban, since he was out of cycling at the time.

As you note, everybody can go back and say what they would have or would not have done. It's just words so I don't give it much credence. Even Tygart right now is spouting about how he never suspected LA before he became head of USADA. Words. Right.

LA sealed his fate with that June 8 letter, and if somebody would write something like that for documentation I can imagine how the phone conferences went. I imagine it ****ed Tygart off immensely, especially knowing what he knew. If I was in his position I would have thrown the sink at LA at that point, and even if I was thinking about a deal prior to that I would have put that out of my mind. And, LA could not choose to fight anything (other than the motions that eventually got dismissed) because of threat of perjury.

In the end, the results speak for themselves about LA's teflon coating vs the evidence accumulated.

 

[webvan]

As you note, everybody can go back and say what they would have or would not have done. It's just words so I don't give it much credence. Even Tygart right now is spouting about how he never suspected LA before he became head of USADA. Words. Right.

LA sealed his fate with that June 8 letter, and if somebody would write something like that for documentation I can imagine how the phone conferences went. I imagine it ****ed Tygart off immensely, especially knowing what he knew. If I was in his position I would have thrown the sink at LA at that point, and even if I was thinking about a deal prior to that I would have put that out of my mind. And, LA could not choose to fight anything (other than the motions that eventually got dismissed) because of threat of perjury.

In the end, the results speak for themselves about LA's teflon coating vs the evidence accumulated.

I went back to that June 8th letter and it's pretty chillin'...LA certainly got a big disservice from his attorneys with that little write-up, if anyone needs the link : http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577465021326477022

 

[hiero2]

Gents - reading over the past 3-4 pages of the thread - I feel like I'm watching a dance - watching you guys see who can step on the other's toes without getting a fist in the face. And watching others go "Ah-ah, you stepped on his toes!"

Ok - we all "get it". We know you don't all like the way the other guy posts. We know you aren't looking for a fight. So back up those words, and just stop. There are at least 4 contributors to keeping the "vortex" going - I suggest giving it a rest. You guys have managed to be relatively polite so far, now let's just accept that there are some differences, and leave it alone.

And, if there ARE instances where either evidence or "imo" is needed? Please let us, the mods, know through the post-reporting channel. If we see it and agree with your assessment, action will be taken.

 

[ChrisE]

Gents - reading over the past 3-4 pages of the thread - I feel like I'm watching a dance - watching you guys see who can step on the other's toes without getting a fist in the face. And watching others go "Ah-ah, you stepped on his toes!"

Ok - we all "get it". We know you don't all like the way the other guy posts. We know you aren't looking for a fight. So back up those words, and just stop. There are at least 4 contributors to keeping the "vortex" going - I suggest giving it a rest. You guys have managed to be relatively polite so far, now let's just accept that there are some differences, and leave it alone.

And, if there ARE instances where either evidence or "imo" is needed? Please let us, the mods, know through the post-reporting channel. If we see it and agree with your assessment, action will be taken.

Are you serious? Pointing out what is opinion vs fact is something we need to go to the mods about, instead of hashing it out ourselves?

Upthread, where DW has a different opinion than me, I should have not replied stating just that, and just reported his post instead. Really?

Or, cutting to the chase with eachother? I see nothing wrong with the exchange between me and Maseratti; I was not offended and I am sure he wasn't either. So if neither one of us complained, why are you posting this?

 

[veganrob]

Following the thread, I am agreeing with ChrisE.

 

[RownhamHill]

I went back to that June 8th letter and it's pretty chillin'...LA certainly got a big disservice from his attorneys with that little write-up, if anyone needs the link : http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577465021326477022

The link is behind a paywall when I click - can anyone paraphrase the gist of the letter, or link to a non paywall version (presumably it's not copyright of WSJ?)?

Thanks