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

[Kretch]

Or, it is simply RR telling someone they are wrong, and suggesting they did not read an affidavit (despite the accused linking to said affidavit), when the content in question does not say what is being claimed to have been said.

Nah, I reckon the toilet clogging is happening again.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It could easily be argued as implied consent.

Don't want to stray too far off-topic, but what does consent (you can) have to do with a claim that someone said something as a directive (you have to)?

If LA (implied) consent to something - he gives (implied) permission (you can) to do something, yeah? Which is different to (implied) demand or implied requirement (you have to), I would have thought.

"We have to go on EPO" (to my mind) is not the same as "We are allowed (given consent) to go on EPO".

Understand legal definitions can differ, and would appreciate clarification.

 

[BroDeal]

People are talking about a "personal agenda" by RR...and are doing so in a way that overtly suggest a "personal agenda" for their disagreement...I mean, when almost the only person you respond to and quote is one person...there's an issue. I don't see any of you jumping on me or mew or pretty much anyone else, but when RR posts, the dogs come howling.

That is because RR is the one driving the agenda. He is pulling stuff out of his @ss, like saying Hincapie claims Andreu was a drug pusher. The Hincapie content in the article is innocuous. It is simply Hincapie explaining a few of the things that led him to use EPO, how he and Andreu used to be friends, and how he did not understand how Andreu wanted to attack the sport and his friends. Nothing from Hincapie in that article was unreasonable. It is just his point of view. It is being portrayed as a sneaky and underhanded attack on the Andreu's by Armstrong.

 

[Boeing]

That is because RR is the one driving the agenda. He is pulling stuff out of his @ss, like saying Hincapie claims Andreu was a drug pusher. The Hincapie content in the article is innocuous. It is simply Hincapie explaining a few of the things that led him to use EPO, how he and Andreu used to be friends, and how he did not understand how Andreu wanted to attack the sport and his friends. Nothing from Hincapie in that article was unreasonable. It is just his point of view. It is being portrayed as a sneaky and underhanded attack on the Andreu's by Armstrong.

well put and after the sleep test I concur and perhaps over reached myself

 

[Scott SoCal]

Don't want to stray too far off-topic, but what does consent (you can) have to do with a claim that someone said something as a directive (you have to)?

If LA (implied) consent to something - he gives (implied) permission (you can) to do something, yeah? Which is different to (implied) demand or implied requirement (you have to), I would have thought.

"We have to go on EPO" (to my mind) is not the same as "We are allowed (given consent) to go on EPO".

Understand legal definitions can differ, and would appreciate clarification.

Lance said something needs to be done ==> I interpreted that to mean we have to use EPO.


It could be as simple as that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nah, I reckon the toilet clogging is happening again.

That's a useful device for shutting down disagreement. RR has fans here, that much is obvious. Disagreeing with him is akin to disagreeing with JV, and elicits similar emotive reactions.

I don't care who you are. If you are telling someone they are wrong and being dismissive or belittling in the process, I am far more likely to respond.

I have been corrected in the past and am more than prepared to admit mistakes.

 

[Scott SoCal]

That is because RR is the one driving the agenda. He is pulling stuff out of his @ss, like saying Hincapie claims Andreu was a drug pusher. The Hincapie content in the article is innocuous. It is simply Hincapie explaining a few of the things that led him to use EPO, how he and Andreu used to be friends, and how he did not understand how Andreu wanted to attack the sport and his friends. Nothing from Hincapie in that article was unreasonable. It is just his point of view. It is being portrayed as a sneaky and underhanded attack on the Andreu's by Armstrong.

Even if this is gospel... one has to wonder why Hincapie would talk now, in this context and to this reporter.

He's been served, to this point, extremely well by keeping his mouth shut. Either he's dumber than I think or something else is up.

 

[Oldman]

Even if this is gospel... one has to wonder why Hincapie would talk now, in this context and to this reporter.

He's been served, to this point, extremely well by keeping his mouth shut. Either he's dumber than I think or something else is up.

Any, and I mean any smokescreen related to a team or Owner directive will suit LA's cause. He's already shown a willingness to bite Weisel's wealthy hand so he wants distance from the settlement. George would presumably receive his reward at some point. Maybe in Lance's historically revisionist memoirs.

 

[Race Radio]

Even if this is gospel... one has to wonder why Hincapie would talk now, in this context and to this reporter.

He's been served, to this point, extremely well by keeping his mouth shut. Either he's dumber than I think or something else is up.

This is what many here do not get. For several months Lance has been trying to get the "Frankie the pusher" angle into the public domain. This is the best he could do. While a small handful of people here try to minimize George's comments most were disgusted by them. I am sure George was surprised by the backlash and will eventually do some form of mea culpa

It is impressive the semantic gymnastics some will go to here. It was obvious to several people on the team that Lance was pushing that the team use EPO. Both Swart and Hincapie had animated discussions with Lance and walked away with the same impression, that he wanted the team to dope. It is pretty simple

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Lance said something needs to be done ==> I interpreted that to mean we have to use EPO.

It could be as simple as that.

Where is the consent bit? Or is the literal translation of the word "consent" irrelevant?

I read some definitions and it seems very much the definition of the word, "consent" to mean "permission" and not "direction".

ie the person implying the consent is implying permission:
* car accident when non-owner is driving a car ==> implied consent was given by the owner when they left the keys in the car
* information gathering when you create an account on a website ==> implied consent was given by the account creator to the website to reasonably use the data provided

 

[Scott SoCal]

Any, and I mean any smokescreen related to a team or Owner directive will suit LA's cause. He's already shown a willingness to bite Weisel's wealthy hand so he wants distance from the settlement. George would presumably receive his reward at some point. Maybe in Lance's historically revisionist memoirs.

And he's shown a willingness to bury the Andreu's.

 

[Kretch]

Where is the consent bit? Or is the literal translation of the word "consent" irrelevant?

I read some definitions and it seems very much the definition of the word, "consent" to mean "permission" and not "direction".

ie the person implying the consent is implying permission:
* car accident when non-owner is driving a car ==> implied consent was given by the owner when they left the keys in the car
* information gathering when you create an account on a website ==> implied consent was given by the account creator to the website to reasonably use the data provided

Oh la la. That's like quibbling over the temperature of the water in the face of tidal wave.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Where is the consent bit? Or is the literal translation of the word "consent" irrelevant?

I read some definitions and it seems very much the definition of the word, "consent" to mean "permission" and not "direction".

ie the person implying the consent is implying permission:
* car accident when non-owner is driving a car ==> implied consent was given by the owner when they left the keys in the car
* information gathering when you create an account on a website ==> implied consent was given by the account creator to the website to reasonably use the data provided

Well, I'm no lawyer...

So Lance says "something needs to be done..." If he's a mob-boss then somebody disappears.

If he's a pro cyclist then Hincapie assumes it to mean getting on the EPO train. That Hincapie assumed what he meant was, in fact, what he meant... should surprise no one.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh la la. That's like quibbling over the temperature of the water in the face of tidal wave.

Or it's trying to learn something of which I have little or no knowledge or experience from people who do.

My language is not emotive or combative, and I am helping myself by researching and then requesting clarification rather than asking for it all on a silver platter.

 

[thehog]

Even if this is gospel... one has to wonder why Hincapie would talk now, in this context and to this reporter.

He's been served, to this point, extremely well by keeping his mouth shut. Either he's dumber than I think or something else is up.

Hincapie made the same claims about Frankie in the Armstrong Lie movie. The Detroit article is not the first time he's made the statement.

My comments at the time:

Hncapie is a total let down. Just reading the auto cue written by Lance. He and Lance kept up with the "We doped conservatively" BS.

What was interesting as depicted in the movie was at the 2009 ToC; Hincapie actually texted Armstrong when he was travelling to the infamous Kimmidge "you don't deserve the chair your sitting on" press conference to tell him Paul was there and to be prepared. Lance texted back and said "bring it on".

The reason George had that stupid grin on his face as Lance was tearing down PK was Lance was doing the trolling George could never do. George was useless and needed Lance to be the man.

Hincapie owes his career to Lance. Without Armstrong he barely would have lasted in Europe. Hincapie is wealthy beyond his dreams due to Armstrong. And Hincapie won't forget that.

Frankie chose his path and Hincapie selected his. Where will they fall is anybodies guess. George won't change tact. He believes in what he's saying.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Interesting that people dislike the revisionism going on from LA (a dislike I share), but if a similar revisionism is revealed here, and subsequently questioned, attempts are made to shut it down, insult it, etc.

Seems hypocritical.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That is because RR is the one driving the agenda. He is pulling stuff out of his @ss, like saying Hincapie claims Andreu was a drug pusher. The Hincapie content in the article is innocuous. It is simply Hincapie explaining a few of the things that led him to use EPO, how he and Andreu used to be friends, and how he did not understand how Andreu wanted to attack the sport and his friends. Nothing from Hincapie in that article was unreasonable. It is just his point of view. It is being portrayed as a sneaky and underhanded attack on the Andreu's by Armstrong.

Scott said it more succinctly. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1392379&postcount=4713

###########
He would have to be THE MOST useful idiot at the right place at the right time. Years later, keeping up his idiot ways, be totally unaware of the consequences of acting like an idiot retelling "this is how it was." Someone else wrote his affidavit and he put an "X" on the bottom.

This introduces new lows in human performance. It's possible. I'm not denying it.

 

[MarkvW]

Obviously Lance was the doping ringleader. I've yet to see anybody dispute that.

Lance can say all the bad things in the world about his doping domestiques, but it's not going to help him very much. They all doped to support Lance, and Lance was at all times totally in control. It's not like Lance is going to deny the doping that went on at USPS.

Sometimes a dope cheat has to take his lumps. Maybe this is Frankie's time.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Say something on topic worth responding to, and let's see what happens.

My only beef is with the incorrect claim that George wrote something in his affidavit that he didn't in fact write. The intent, and the leader / instigator are not in question. George's reprehensible actions now, so late in the piece are despicable, and Lance is someone for whom I have no respect.

But George did not write what is being claimed. I find it very difficult to believe you could submit that claim (Lance said use EPO) as evidence in court, based on what George has written (Lance said something needs to be done ==> I interpreted that to mean we have to use EPO).

First, you haven't asked a question intelligible enough to answer specifically, nor made a statement that reflects knowledge of the rules of evidence related to the statement. There are a myriad of scenarios under which that statement could be introduced into evidence, and of course there are ways it could be excluded though fewer in number than the ways it could be introduced. I am not saying this pejoratively, you are too ignorant of the subject to be able to form a relevant question. Asking "Well how can it be introduced?" is not nearly narrow enough for me to be able to succinctly answer that question, and I have neither the time nor inclination to write a lengthy recitation of the ways that statement could be answered. Sorry, but you need to refine and revise.

Thanks for the offer though...

Hey, how's your mom?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Hincapie made the same claims about Frankie in the Armstrong Lie movie. The Detroit article is not the first time he's made the statement.

My comments at the time:



What was interesting as depicted in the movie was at the 2009 ToC; Hincapie actually texted Armstrong when he was travelling to the infamous Kimmidge "you don't deserve the chair your sitting on" press conference to tell him Paul was there and to be prepared. Lance texted back and said "bring it on".

The reason George had that stupid grin on his face as Lance was tearing down PK was Lance was doing the trolling George could never do. George was useless and needed Lance to be the man.

Hincapie owes his career to Lance. Without Armstrong he barely would have lasted in Europe. Hincapie is wealthy beyond his dreams due to Armstrong. And Hincapie won't forget that.

Frankie chose his path and Hincapie selected his. Where will they fall is anybodies guess. George won't change tact. He believes in what he's saying.

Yes.

But George is changing tact. The question is; why?

Unless something else bubbles up it all but has to go to the highlighted.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Obviously Lance was the doping ringleader. I've yet to see anybody dispute that.

Lance can say all the bad things in the world about his doping domestiques, but it's not going to help him very much. They all doped to support Lance, and Lance was at all times totally in control. It's not like Lance is going to deny the doping that went on at USPS.

Sometimes a dope cheat has to take his lumps. Maybe this is Frankie's time.

I'm willing to bet this either goes nowhere, or it circles back to kick GH in the nads.

 

[thehog]

Yes.

But George is changing tact. The question is; why?

Unless something else bubbles up it all but has to go to the highlighted.

Nah. He's always been on Lance's side. Now some of the heat has gone at of the issue he's saying what he thinks.

He never would have testified if he didn't have to as he has been the only one in touch with Lance from day one of the downfall.

Brothers.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Nah. He's always been on Lance's side. Now some of the heat has gone at of the issue he's saying what he thinks.

He never would have testified if he didn't have to as he has been the only one in touch with Lance from day one of the downfall.

Brothers.

All true.... but;

He's been incredibly careful to avoid public comments regarding his doping. Now he's not. That's different.

 

[thehog]

Obviously Lance was the doping ringleader. I've yet to see anybody dispute that.

Lance can say all the bad things in the world about his doping domestiques, but it's not going to help him very much. They all doped to support Lance, and Lance was at all times totally in control. It's not like Lance is going to deny the doping that went on at USPS.

Sometimes a dope cheat has to take his lumps. Maybe this is Frankie's time.

Agreed. Lance is and was Kingpin and correct he's not going to climb the ladder by implying Frankie was some form of early days doping dictator.

It's all very messy in the cesspit of cycling. The vultures are starting to eat each other.

I'm not sure one can draw lines on good and evil in this quagmire.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If Lance invested some megabucks in Hincapie's business(s), would that be retrievable via the Qi Tam case or any other legal avenue?