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

[Night Rider]

Great post. I'll just add, as RR pointed out before, that the Crow reference to Betsy that started this discussion was to something Betsy said quite a while ago. Not recently. So I agree, it's not Betsy who needs to move on.

Crow was asked a direct question about Betsy's comments. Perhaps it's the journalist that needs to move on? I'm glad he asked though as I missed her trash comments when they were first made.

This time last year Crow was dragged into the controversy by comments from Betsy Andreu, wife of Armstrong’s ex-team-mate Frankie Andreu. In her opinion, Crow must have known something. The whistleblower who exposed the seven-times Tour de France winner said: “Sheryl was by his side when he was trying to destroy people and she said nothing. That’s unconscionable. It just astounds me.”

When I mention this, Crow replies coolly. “I think Betsy, just like everybody in this picture, has her own ulterior motivations. And Betsy doesn’t know me. I think grace goes a long way. I think going out into the press and talking about what people should and shouldn’t do when they don’t know anything about you or your story, is irresponsible and slightly on the weird tip, personally.”

A discreet silence is better? “I think people who go out and mouth off about people they don’t know, it makes them look bad. It certainly did not do her any great service.”

 

[Merckx index]

Hope this isn't violating the cease and desist order, but I thought it was interesting. From Sheryl’s Wiki:

Armstrong has stated in numerous interviews that Crow's music cured his cancer.

Seriously? I never heard this before, and it doesn’t sound like LA at aIl. At one point I think he was implying that he “beat” cancer because of his will to live, but I thought he eventually acknowleged it was a combination of the best treatment, and luck. LA has always struck me as a realist in this respect.

Maybe he just meant it put him in a less stressful mood? Anyone know anything about this?

 

[frenchfry]

Hope this isn't violating the cease and desist order, but I thought it was interesting. From Sheryl’s Wiki:



Seriously? I never heard this before, and it doesn’t sound like LA at aIl. At one point I think he was implying that he “beat” cancer because of his will to live, but I thought he eventually acknowleged it was a combination of the best treatment, and luck. LA has always struck me as a realist in this respect.

Maybe he just meant it put him in a less stressful mood? Anyone know anything about this?

I understood that it was the hookers and blow.

 

[Granville57]

Hope this isn't violating the cease and desist order, but I thought it was interesting. From Sheryl’s Wiki:

Huh?

Where, exactly, on Sheryl's Wiki page is that quote from? I find nothing of the sort.

 

[kingjr]

Huh?

Where, exactly, on Sheryl's Wiki page is that quote from? I find nothing of the sort.

Has been deleted.

12:26, 21 January 2014‎ Aapjes (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,209 bytes) (-80)‎ . . (Removed a ridiculous and unsourced claim (my google search shows no evidence it is true)) (undo)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheryl_Crow&diff=591705028&oldid=591678760

 

[Granville57]

Has been deleted.

Cool. Thanks.


Can we talk about Betsy now?

 

[sittingbison]

the guy with the knife and beady eyes looks like he is about to use it on the dame

the guy in the hat doesn't look like he is going to be noble and take one for the gipper

the dame looks like she is going to use the casserole lid to conk the guy with the knife

...Can we talk about Betsy now? ...

if its a genuine conversation and not trolling or baiting with personal agendas in play, no problemo

 

[Merckx index]

if its a genuine conversation and not trolling or baiting with personal agendas in play, no problemo

In that spirit, I want to see just where Crow's defenders draw the line. I assume the reason they think Crow had no particular obligation to speak out is because they feel that what Armstrong did was no big deal. I assume that if his transgressions were greater, they would take a different position.

Suppose Crow had been intimate with Bernie Madoff, and knew that he was running a scam that would end up bilking thousands, or whatever, out of their life savings. Would it still be perfectly understandable and acceptable to remain quiet? Suppose she was the partner of someone who committed a murder, and knew that he did? Still ok?

This should be obvious, but let me emphasize again I'm not comparing what Armstrong did to these other acts. I'm trying to see how serious a transgression has to be, in the minds of these posters, before they find a major ethical lapse in being silent. One no doubt could make a case for silence even in these instances if the person felt her life or livelihood threatened if she spoke up. But as has been pointed out ad nauseum here, this was not Crow's situation. I think we can also dispense with the "other people didn't say anything" argument, too, since in these latter cases, that alone--I hope--would not excuse silence.

For those of you who find both of these two examples clearly over the line, let's draw it closer to the actual situation. Suppose Crow had actual knowledge of Armstrong threatening someone's life if he tried to reveal his doping (again, I'm not saying this happened, though from the Cache Cache incident, and the threats to Tygart, we know it's not that far-fetched). Would she be obligated to say something? Suppose she had knowledge of Armstrong threatening to do something that would clearly, unmistakably ruin someone's career--as in today, had a good job and future prospects, tomorrow, zero. Is that over the line?

I want to get beyond the actual situation and see what further had to happen before people begin to change their stance on this issue. I think that most of her supporters, even Hog, are viewing what Armstrong did as "only doping", and not that important in the big scheme of things.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I want to get beyond the actual situation and see what further had to happen before people begin to change their stance on this issue.

While we're at it, let's go to the other end of the spectrum. For those of you who have or have had partners, where do you draw the line?

If you are driving and

1. drunk, or
2. speeding, or
3. run a red light, or
4. nudge someone in the parking lot,

do you expect said partner to go to the police?

If you find $10k in 100 dollar bills out in the woods one day and want to keep it for yourself rather than turning it in, do you expect your partner to go to the police?

Assume marjiuana is illegal in your state, but your new gf sees you smoking dope. Does she go to the police? What if you're at a party and do some blow?

Personally, I think this story (LA etc) is over, and crying over spilt milk is about the level of travesty, and importance that this whole Crow thing holds.

 

[sittingbison]

In that spirit, I want to see just where Crow's defenders draw the line. I assume the reason they think Crow had no particular obligation to speak out is because they feel that what Armstrong did was no big deal. I assume that if his transgressions were greater, they would take a different position.....

Merckx index I think this is an interesting proposition, but more suited to a thread of its own. And not just limited to Crow. It goes to the heart of omerta.

Would you like to start said thread please?

cheers
bison

 

[Netserk]

I probably wouldn't turn my partner in if she was drunk driving (but I would of course stop it if I could). On the other end I certainly would so if it was murder.

TBH if my partner was an athlete and doped, I would not turn her in. Ofc Lance was (way) more than just dope, but I don't think this is a slam-dunk either way.

Edit: didn't see sb's post.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Has been deleted.

12:26, 21 January 2014‎ Aapjes (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,209 bytes) (-80)‎ . . (Removed a ridiculous and unsourced claim (my google search shows no evidence it is true)) (undo)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheryl_Crow&diff=591705028&oldid=591678760

Armstrong has stated in numerous interviews that Crow's music cured his cancer

So .....either I am stupid, or shouldn't Livestrong have been dispensing the "musical elixir' cure from day 1. How many perished needlessly.....

 

[MarkvW]

While we're at it, let's go to the other end of the spectrum. For those of you who have or have had partners, where do you draw the line?

If you are driving and

1. drunk, or
2. speeding, or
3. run a red light, or
4. nudge someone in the parking lot,

do you expect said partner to go to the police?

If you find $10k in 100 dollar bills out in the woods one day and want to keep it for yourself rather than turning it in, do you expect your partner to go to the police?

Assume marjiuana is illegal in your state, but your new gf sees you smoking dope. Does she go to the police? What if you're at a party and do some blow?

Personally, I think this story (LA etc) is over, and crying over spilt milk is about the level of travesty, and importance that this whole Crow thing holds.

Crow has a new album coming out. That prompted her recent interview, which prompted this thread. Buzzzzzzzzz

 

[DirtyWorks]

Suppose Crow had been intimate with Bernie Madoff, and knew that he was running a scam that would end up bilking thousands, or whatever, out of their life savings. Would it still be perfectly understandable and acceptable to remain quiet?

You are missing an important factor in these situations. I know from personal experience *some* of these entertainment personalities are quite similar to Armstrong. It is neither interesting nor pleasant to be around them.

In the most oversimplified terms, "What about me and my high rank in my industry?" is evaluated minute-to-minute with little care for much of anything else. Dating someone that is fixing races, doping, intimidating rivals with litigation is perfectly okay when you are just as openly rank-obsessed in your industry.

I've been in circumstances with some very nice people who are well-known too. Don't generalize too much.

 

[Stingray34]

Brian Cookson leaves door open for Lance's ban reduction

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...ance-ban-could-be-reduced-20140123-31avl.html

There will be the possibility of a reduction.

"The commission will have to make an assessment of that on a case-by-case basis."

Cookson also said the commission or the UCI would not have the final say on whether a rider such as Armstrong would received a reduction.

"It all depends on what information Lance has and what he's able to reveal," the Englishman said.

"Actually that's not going to be in my hands - he's been sanctioned by USADA (the US doping authority).

 

[wirral]

Brian Cookson leaves door open for Lance's ban reduction

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...ance-ban-could-be-reduced-20140123-31avl.html

Thanks for that.

.....and then seems to close it with his final comment.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Thanks for that.

.....and then seems to close it with his final comment.

Yes. It seemed more like Cookson was saying: "When USADA refuse to shorten the ban (which seems the most likely outcome) it's nothing to do with us, so don't complain to us."

 

[Oldman]

Cookson may still be hoping Lance has his bribes to Pat on film or something. Can't see Lance being relevant at all if the press let the topic fade away.

 

[Stingray34]

Yes, what's telling is that Cookson made these comments at the same interview where he discussed the future of the World Tour calendar and the Tour Down Under's place in it. This was reported on the news site, but I haven't seen anyone else pick up the Lance comments except the Brisbane times.

This is pretty ominous for Lance: no one cares about his smoking gun confessions anymore. There isn't much that could be new, and as a confirmed liar, who would believe it when he has an ulterior motive.

 

[fatandfast]

Cool. Thanks.


Can we talk about Betsy now?

I just finished reading Wheelman and the book is pretty good but left so many questions about everybody else it probably needs a follow up. Betsy's outrage at drug use by her husband and others is kind of out of order. It's written that she says she will leave Frankie if he uses, but she doesn't. Landis says he was outraged, but only officially after his fellow drug users couldn't line him up with either cash or a job. Lance and everybody he knows has a very deep scumbag trait at every turn.

I was interested to know if the numbers on Lance's net worth are true. I also wish the book could have uncovered if Armstrong had tried to insulate his bank accounts in the event he was caught for simple doping rather than the huge fraud-o-rama he is in now.

 

[DirtyWorks]

There isn't much that could be new, and as a confirmed liar, who would believe it when he has an ulterior motive.

I have no doubt there is plenty new stuff he could contribute, but you have several complicating factors:

1. Implicate people he is still protecting. (Wiesel, Verbruggen)
2. Probable admissions to various crimes, frauds and so on.
3. He can't tell the truth. Does he even knows what is fact vs. "fighter" fantasy?
4. His co-conspirators are so much better at fraud than he.
5. Thomas Bach, IOC overlord has publicly declared good riddance to Wonderboy. Cookson can't upset arguably the most powerful guy in the IOC that he does not know.

The UCI would work to reduce his ban without a second thought if it weren't for Bach.

 

[BroDeal]

I don't see that a ban reduction matters that much. Armstrong should have received four years (two plus two for aggravating circumstances). That is probably what Bruyneel will end up with. Even reduced to that, Armstrong would still be forty-five. He will not be competitive in elite competition at that age. The ban prevents him from being involved with a running a cycling team, which he has shown no inclination to do, and from showing up at events and high-fiving whatever fans he has left. If he wants to do that then are are all sorts of gran fondos, many run by dopers, and amateur rides he can do. If he really wants to get back into cycling then he could start his own series of gran fondos. If the events are good then people will do them, and a large upfront investment and conscientious organization would ensure the events are good.

In the long run his sporting results will be accepted, whether it is done officially or de facto. Twenty years from now when people write books about the history of the Tour de France they won't leave out coverage of the 1999-2005 editions of the race. His wins will be seen the same as Riis', Ullrich's, Pantani's, Landis' and Contador's. For sporting redemption he just has to wait.

On a human level, no reduction will change what the public now knows of his personality. That Pete Rose-like stench won't go away.

 

[zigmeister]

I just finished reading Wheelman and the book is pretty good but left so many questions about everybody else it probably needs a follow up. Betsy's outrage at drug use by her husband and others is kind of out of order. It's written that she says she will leave Frankie if he uses, but she doesn't. Landis says he was outraged, but only officially after his fellow drug users couldn't line him up with either cash or a job. Lance and everybody he knows has a very deep scumbag trait at every turn.

I was interested to know if the numbers on Lance's net worth are true. I also wish the book could have uncovered if Armstrong had tried to insulate his bank accounts in the event he was caught for simple doping rather than the huge fraud-o-rama he is in now.

I think this has been covered ad naseum, myself included regarding Betsy and her contradictory behavior when it comes to her husband.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

On a human level, no reduction will change what the public now knows of his personality. That Pete Rose-like stench won't go away.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I have no doubt there is plenty new stuff he could contribute, but you have several complicating factors:

1. Implicate people he is still protecting. (Wiesel, Verbruggen)

My question here is, why? Why continue protecting these two? What would he gain from this?