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

[Benotti69]

+1 This is the most important part of the doping story and has not been told.


So as long as Armstrong continues to get the attention he so deeply and desperately craves, I have no problem poking holes in his futile attempt to vindicate himself.

+1 I have no problem with CN posting the story. They want page views, I like knocking down the image rehabilitation attempts.

For sure.

I checked the comments on that story. Wonderboy still has some fans!

Could be wonderboy making mulitple comments, he has lots of time

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Any other rider have this level of access? Nope

By 2001, almost certainly not. My original observation was about whether Hein would be betting solely on Lance in 1998 whilst he was just a recovered cancer sufferer riding mid pack.

Hein is as dodgy as they come. Mig's 1994 Salbutamol test failure didn't disappear by accident and neither was Graeme Obree's bike design banned for safety reasons or concerns about unequal access to technology. In respect of the latter, Hein was clearly in the pocket of the big bike manufacturers who didn't like being made mugs of by Obree's home made bikes. Hence the ruling that track bikes had to be available retail, with the Pinarello Shark, on which the aforementioned Mig broke the hour record, retailing for $1m, with 6 made in total.

Hein's "MO" was clearly "speculate to accumulate" and then when a dominant force emerges, saddle up with them for a few years and when that force fades, re-speculate and then saddle up with the next dominant force. In the post-Mig years, he would definitely have been speculating, and he latched onto Lance when he emerged, rather than committing to him and no-one else when he was still a no-hoper.

If Ullrich hadn't gone off the rails in '98 and '99 then he could well have been the chosen one, and Lance would have been no-one after serving a 2 year ban for doping from the 1999 Tour.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If Armstrong had taken it to arbitration they would have limited supeona power but no way Hein shows up

Plus, you'd have WADA/NADO overstepping their charter of athlete drug testing. That would raise howls of protest from other IOC federations much larger than they already had with a NADO actually doing their job and sanctioning athletes.

This is one of the great features of WADA. They have no authority over the sports federations doing most of the testing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Hein's "MO" was clearly "speculate to accumulate"

Without a doubt, the guy took a poorly funded federation and turned it into one with a solid operating outlook.

I still want to know how much he has skimmed over the years. Remember Makarov said he had to license the title "Tour of Russia" from some unnamed private company.

Hein is still Supreme Commander of the UCI or whatever may be his unelected, lifetime title. He claims to be retired, but we know he's changed his stories before to suit him without apology. For example, "Never, never, never doped" to "always had suspicions."

As posted above, there is so much important stuff left untold if the sport is ever going to regain some propriety, the corruption has to end.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cheers HJ, seems some people are not allowed to voice suspicion, speculation, opinion, guestimations without someone wanting to vortex it.

I mean its not like this sport doesn't have a history

Benotti,
Just so we are clear on this - you are entitled to post whatever you wish.
This is a forum and the moment you 'submit reply' it is up for public scrutiny and comment.

It is not my concern why you claim to know 'the history' and then get basic stuff wrong, or that after 10,000+ posts you are incapable of articulating your point or backing up your views. Even your trolling is weak.

If you have a problem with me querying you on what you post, tough.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sociological exercise. Ocassionally yields other distinctions and confirmations than lawyers worth their salt.

At the same time, why would someone with superior debating skills pop in to take down chumps? Easy day of target practice?

Because it's fun taking down chumps.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Couldn't whoever(say USADA) subpeona Hein and force him to tell the truth?

The problem there is that they have not stick to hit him with and make him come to answer. The UCI could file something in court if the SOL hasn't run, but I have no idea what Swiss SOL's are. The USADA's got nothing to compel him other than calling him really bad names...nor do I suspect that any other federation has anything more.

 

[Benotti69]

my last reply to the vortex.

Benotti,
Just so we are clear on this - you are entitled to post whatever you wish.
This is a forum and the moment you 'submit reply' it is up for public scrutiny and comment.

DrVortex, I never said it wasn't, but you seem to select mine (and 1 or 2 others) to get minutae pedantic on (that reads like a euphanism, do you get pedantic while naked?). With you it appears personal. Kind like an itch you gotta scratch.

It is not my concern why you claim to know 'the history'

I dont claim to know the history, but it is common knowledge that the sport has a current and past doping problem. Hey ask Lance!

and then get basic stuff wrong, or that after 10,000+ posts you are incapable of articulating your point or backing up your views.

I disagree. I dont get things wrong. You dont like how i articulate my opinion it obviously bothers you that you have got to select the minutae out of my (and 1or 3 others) posts and then start vortexing. Rarely do you select a whole post to point out an error. You get pedantic on minutae.

I post my opinion. If that is not articulate enough for you, tough ***. I feel others get where i am coming from.

If you have a problem with me querying you on what you post, tough.

I dont. Last time you kept the vortexing going meant you got a holiday.

 

[Benotti69]

The problem there is that they have not stick to hit him with and make him come to answer. The UCI could file something in court if the SOL hasn't run, but I have no idea what Swiss SOL's are. The USADA's got nothing to compel him other than calling him really bad names...nor do I suspect that any other federation has anything more.

UCI are not going to go after Hein unless they have proof he robbed the joint and they can get the money back through the courts.

I guess Cookson wants a slice of IOC pie in the future so will not rock the boat to upset that calm and serene lake.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

my last reply to the vortex.

I wish.

DrVortex, I never said it wasn't, but you seem to select mine (and 1 or 2 others) to get minutae pedantic on (that reads like a euphanism, do you get pedantic while naked?). With you it appears personal. Kind like an itch you gotta scratch.



I dont claim to know the history, but it is common knowledge that the sport has a current and past doping problem. Hey ask Lance!



I disagree. I dont get things wrong. You dont like how i articulate my opinion it obviously bothers you that you have got to select the minutae out of my (and 1or 3 others) posts and then start vortexing. Rarely do you select a whole post to point out an error. You get pedantic on minutae.

I post my opinion. If that is not articulate enough for you, tough ***. I feel others get where i am coming from.



I dont. Last time you kept the vortexing going meant you got a holiday.

If you have a problem with me questioning you on what you post please report it to a mod.

 

[BroDeal]

Hein is as dodgy as they come. Mig's 1994 Salbutamol test failure didn't disappear by accident and neither was Graeme Obree's bike design banned for safety reasons or concerns about unequal access to technology. In respect of the latter, Hein was clearly in the pocket of the big bike manufacturers who didn't like being made mugs of by Obree's home made bikes. Hence the ruling that track bikes had to be available retail, with the Pinarello Shark, on which the aforementioned Mig broke the hour record, retailing for $1m, with 6 made in total.

Oh, brother. Verbruggen is now the tool of a shadowy cabal of big bike manufacturers that were embarrassed even though they don't make any money in track bikes. They insisted that rules for rules on fairness to be implemented to put Obree back on the plantation. Of course the rules on availability have not stopped British Cycling from flagrantly cheating, and Obree could have done the same thing BC did, put up a sham web page claiming his equipment was for sale to the public even though he made sure he never sold any.

This cowardly plot, which culminated in the Lugano Charter, could not possibly be explained by the simple observation that time trial bikes had gotten completely out of hand. For a good overview, check out the Slowtwitch thread on 90s time trial bikes that includes hundreds of photos of ever more ludicrous bikes. The emphasis was no longer on the athlete, it was on the machine. In fact the situation had become so ludicrous that a moderately talented--if that--rider made a mockery of the record, highlighting that something needed to be done if the record was to have any historical meaning. But, no, it cannot be the obvious and straightforward explanation; it has to be a scheme to stop Obree.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Armstrong Lie has a lot of Armstrong lies.

 

[aphronesis]

What is hypocritical or deluded about seeking sport to be exactly that, sport.

You are getting your ad-hominens in early, usually a sign of someone who cannot argue a point.
If you think taking or allowing PEDs is in 'the spirit of sport' by all means say so, indeed the admission may explain your view.


Indeed - anti-doping needs better enforcement, and at no point did I suggest nor do I think that is the only thing that needs addressing.

You're getting confused. As usual. Find the ad hominem where you're concerned. More to the point: bring up the PED post and argue it exclusively.

 

[ebandit]

vortex

my last reply to the vortex.

benny...........i'm sure you consider that you're funny but the forum would be better without your vortex

please wind it in.............thanks!

Mark L

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're getting confused. As usual. Find the ad hominem where you're concerned. More to the point: bring up the PED post and argue it exclusively.

Isn't that the point though?

It's subtle enough not to warrant mod intervention or actiion but it is what it is, but I am not a mod, so let's call it out now.
If you wish to continue this fascinating subject which has nothing (but everything) to do with the subject of the thread MR Lance Armstrong, then continue in an appropriate thread or set up a new thread.

See what I did there?
If you don't wish to play, I mean expand your interesting thoughts in another thread, then run along, there is no need to to waste your precious brain cells with a departing retort as it will be neither clever or subtle.

 

[aphronesis]

Yes, but now it's much more blatant. We're now at a point where Armstrong himself is offering his new narrative directly to the masses, with the full complicity of CN. All of this—in this particular case—under the guise of a "tribute" to a deceased doper of great fame.

Is it any surprise that such a comedy show elicits mocking derision from many of those who have been following this fairy tale from the start?

Speaking only for myself here:
I'd be more than happy if Armstrong were to simply go away, in silence, and that his name would never be mentioned during a race broadcast again. And god forbid his likeness wouldn't appear prominently on the cover of any cycling magazine or homepage for, say...at least a year. I'd be fine with all of that.

But no, anyone who desires to maintain any interest in the sport of cycling is subjected to the media's endless addiction to All-Things-Lance. As has been clearly stated by many, Lance's greatest fear would seem to be irrelevancy, so he's doing everything within his grasp to avoid that. I don't consider one, single thing that he does to be genuine, sincere, or heartfelt. He's doing what he has always done: Looking out for Lance. The rest is all BS. Call me cynical.


Pointing out the transparency of his attempts to stay relevant is entertainment for me. The only downside is the ease of doing so. It really doesn't offer much of a challenge. But in my spare time, I still get a kick out of it. Some people prefer to watch sitcoms.

And like waiting for that final episode of Breaking Bad, I'm curious to see where and when this will all end. I doubt there will be too many surprises left, but it's always fun to watch a bully squirm.

So as long as Armstrong continues to get the attention he so deeply and desperately craves, I have no problem poking holes in his futile attempt to vindicate himself.

It really is as simple as that, for me.

Which masses? Cycling fans? In the US? Yeah, can't walk out the front door without knocking one down. It would be nice to take this sort of opinion more seriously if it could be presented without hyperbole and exaggeration--potentially utter divorce from reality.

First of all this approach implies that anyone holding the opinion you offer here is less enlightened than you are. Several problems with this: the masses don't care; Armstrong's metaposition of celebrity is over; his publicity lately is restricted to minor and/or niche outlets (i.e. cycling media in the latter case); and within the context of cycling (take this site for example and read what some of the hardcore road racing posters have to say) he is still regarded as part of the sport's history. However much you may dislike that.

If you have a problem with the "media's addiction to Lance" why not talk about that as well? You think it's unrelated to what he is or was? You think they're two separate phenomena and "the media" is just some naturally occurring entity that has the unfortunate tendency to publicize Lance?

Curious. Sort of. In a banal way.

As to all your remarks about Lance's psychology what part of that is new or unknown to anyone with bandwidth who's worth thinking about? Why restate it on a daily basis instead of--as some did yesterday--unpacking the actual details of how that myth and psychology were constructed?

 

[aphronesis]

Isn't that the point though?

It's subtle enough not to warrant mod intervention or actiion but it is what it is, but I am not a mod, so let's call it out now.
If you wish to continue this fascinating subject which has nothing (but everything) to do with the subject of the thread MR Lance Armstrong, then continue in an appropriate thread or set up a new thread.

See what I did there?
If you don't wish to play, I mean expand your interesting thoughts in another thread, then run along, there is no need to to waste your precious brain cells with a departing retort as it will be neither clever or subtle.

Well, much as I'd love to oblige you, it is, as they say, a forum. And you are not a mod (you pretend more to the status of rhetorical despot--and the plebs love you for it), so that means my own interpretation of this "fascinating subject" does have much to do with the subject of Mr LA as a media and sociological topic. You may not like it, but those are inseparable aspects of his career as cyclist--and vice versa. As the media aspect continues to define that half-life, I see no reason not to keep it in play. The Pantani tribute being a case in point.

Now, anytime you feel capable of giving me a rigorous and nuanced definition and historical genealogy of what the "spirit of sport" might be, then I'll take your posts seriously, rather than viewing them as ultimately naive, sheltered and unintentionally comical--in a very pathetic sort of way.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Well, much as I'd love to oblige you, it is, as they say, a forum. And you are not a mod (you pretend more to the status of rhetorical despot--and the plebs love you for it), so that means my own interpretation of this "fascinating subject" does have much to do with the subject of Mr LA as a media and sociological topic. You may not like it, but those are inseparable aspects of his career as cyclist--and vice versa. As the media aspect continues to define that half-life, I see no reason not to keep it in play. The Pantani tribute being a case in point.

Now, anytime you feel capable of giving me a rigorous and nuanced definition and historical genealogy of what the "spirit of sport" might be, then I'll take your posts seriously, rather than viewing them as ultimately naive, sheltered and unintentionally comical--in a very pathetic sort of way.

Aphro strikes again.

The I-can't-be-bothered-with-details-as-I'm-a-big-picture-big-thinking-kinda-dude-even-though-I-can't-resist-commenting-on-the-minutiae-while-telling-anyone-who-will-listen-that-I'm-above-it-all.

True, it's a long nickname.

 

[aphronesis]

Aphro strikes again.

The I-can't-be-bothered-with-details-as-I'm-a-big-picture-big-thinking-kinda-dude-even-though-I-can't-resist-commenting-on-the-minutiae-while-telling-anyone-who-will-listen-that-I'm-above-it-all.

True, it's a long nickname.

Did he ask me a question? Nope. You got one? Nope. It's interesting, the only people who think I've said I'm above it all or that I claim to be more intelligent than anyone else are likely those who feel it most acutely....

I've laid out the details of my position and won't repeat them for the sake of self-affirmation. Especially not if, as happened the last time I bothered, some carrot might crawl out of the dirt to ask me where I keep the wristbands.

As if my fashion sense were ever that degraded....

But let's get this on record before the mods show up. I simply contested RR's presentation of the saga and a slowly building sh1tstorm begin to ensue with multiple posters lining up to weigh in. Them not--or as much as--me. Not on the level of the past for sure, but then the bar is lower.

The fact that I may disagree with his or your presentation and interpretation of what "history" is, how it works, and the utter banality of talking about individual intention is not something that's going to be cleared up with a few details, a link, or my stating my views on PED use (which, to clarify, are irrelevant as explanation: one's views can't be detached from or opposed to the use of PEDs in the culture and pro ranks) and there's no point in trying to make the argument, when, again, as below, half of doing so means dealing with inane posts that reduce everything to pro and con.

 

[Granville57]

Which masses? Cycling fans? In the US?

You must really be quite bored. Who do you suppose I meant by this?

Yes, but now it's much more blatant. We're now at a point where Armstrong himself is offering his new narrative directly to the masses, with the full complicity of CN

I'll give you a hint: Anyone who might glance at the CN homepage. I'll leave it to you to figure out just who that might be.

First of all this approach implies that anyone holding the opinion you offer here is less enlightened than you are.

Yes, clearly that is what I was implying. I feel so caught out by you now. Such shame. It's almost more than I can bare. You must be referring to this part:

Speaking only for myself here:

Several problems with this: the masses don't care...

Oh, you mean the real masses? Yeah, no sh!t. Brilliant observation.

he is still regarded as part of the sports history.

You don't miss a beat, do you? Stunning insight you've offered us.

If you have a problem with the "media's addiction to Lance" why not talk about that as well?

Oh, you mean why I don't I talk about it again? I've covered it all countless times in the past (even in that very post, but you'll have to look very carefully) and I'm sure I'll touch on it again in the future. But thanks, coach!

 

[aphronesis]

You must really be quite bored. Who do you suppose I meant by this?
I'll give you a hint: Anyone who might glance at the CN homepage. I'll leave it to you to figure out just who that might be.


Yes, clearly that is what I was implying. I feel so caught out by you now. Such shame. It's almost more than I can bare. You must be referring to this part:


Oh, you mean the real masses? Yeah, no sh!t. Brilliant observation.

You don't miss a beat, do you? Stunning insight you've offered us.


Oh, you mean why I don't I talk about it again? I've covered it all countless times in the past (even in that very post, but you'll have to look very carefully) and I'm sure I'll touch on it again in the future. But thanks, coach!

It's bear. Use a picture next time. I swim at the level of the water. It's called energy conservation.

Now, on to your real point. If you mean cycling masses and not real masses, again, which ones do you imagine you're enlightening? Ones who bought a bike yesterday? Thanks for the wisdom gramps.

But you're right. I am unfathomably bored. And you're not helping.

 

[ebandit]

lance

it is, as they say, a forum. And you are not a mod (you pretend more to the status of rhetorical despot--and the plebs love you for it)

Now, anytime you feel capable of giving me a rigorous and nuanced definition and historical genealogy of what the "spirit of sport" might be, then I'll take your posts seriously, rather than viewing them as ultimately naive, sheltered and unintentionally comical--in a very pathetic sort of way.

wow! lance will appreciate that..........thinking that they are better than others

i may not be as clever as yourself but i know what love is

Mark L

 

[aphronesis]

wow! lance will appreciate that..........thinking that they are better than others

i may not be as clever as yourself but i know what love is

Mark L

on cue. like color blindness i suppose.

 

[spetsa]

This forum does not just blow, it is an f'n joke

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This forum does not just blow, it is an f'n joke

Valuable contribution