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

[Oldman]

So...Frankie quits doping in 2000, at his wife's request. What does he do then? The answer is not pretty, folks. He becomes (with full knowledge of the doping) an assistant director of the USPS team--the greatest doping conspiracy the sport has ever known (yet).

Hard to say Lance forced Frankie into that second job....

Lance's filthy and corrupt team must have been quite seductive back then. Or, maybe it was just one filthy and corrupt team in a thoroughly filthy and corrupt sport?

...and A Rod is a baseball player in a league of...dirty and clean players. Revisionist history tends to favor the guilty if people buy it.
I would never accept that anyone on USPS was remotely clean; far from it. They were recruited for their "professionalism" by Weisel early on. That's his mantra and he sought out compliant riders. That makes none of them acceptable.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So...Frankie quits doping in 2000, at his wife's request. What does he do then?

Good question, Mark.

The answer is not pretty, folks. He becomes (with full knowledge of the doping) an assistant director of the USPS team--the greatest doping conspiracy the sport has ever known (yet).

Hard to say Lance forced Frankie into that second job....

The answer is not only 'not pretty' its not even pretty close.

Frankie got a paycut in 2000.
So he decided to DS in 2001, he had 2 offers and Frankie mentioned them to Bruyneel. Who then called these teams and told them not to hire him.

Thats how it works Mark, in a filthy corrupt team sport - that you love

Lance's filthy and corrupt team must have been quite seductive back then. Or, maybe it was just one filthy and corrupt team in a thoroughly filthy and corrupt sport?

And yet your Lance still decided to deny something so obvious. Damn.

 

[MarkvW]

It may not have been a sinister as this. My hunch is Frankie, like all of us, had bills to pay.

Hard to figure. Lance paid his people very badly. I keep coming back to Zabriskie and the $15K offer. When it came to pay (as well as the best drugs), it really was 'all about Lance.'

 

[MarkvW]

Good question, Mark.

The answer is not only 'not pretty' its not even pretty close.

Frankie got a paycut in 2000.
So he decided to DS in 2001, he had 2 offers and Frankie mentioned them to Bruyneel. Who then called these teams and told them not to hire him.

Thats how it works Mark, in a filthy corrupt team sport - that you love



And yet your Lance still decided to deny something so obvious. Damn.

It is grotesquely filthy, isn't it!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

#1 Sport administration does not have a "legal system." There is no court system, no law enforcement. The sports federations are their own rules enforcement bodies.

#2 Since there is no law enforcement or judicial system, people with sufficient political standing can simply order people to do what they wish. And they do.

#1. With respect, national sports federations do have a legal system, although it is based on administrative law and not what most people think of when they think about court systems i.e. a civil and criminal law system. Administrative law is a branch of civil law.

In the US, most national sports administrators and federations are content to let USADA handle doping cases. Accordingly USADA had the American Arbitration Association propose the rules for these hearings. The rules contain many of the same principles and procedures used in the regular court system. These hearings can usually be held much more quickly than the regular court system and are generally much cheaper.

In Canada, all national sports federations (e.g. Cycling Canada) let the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) handle doping cases. In turn CCES uses the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to conduct these hearings. The SDRCC uses their own arbitration rules that are similar to the AAA rules in the USA.

The arbitration rules used in the USA (AAA) and Canada (SDRCC) constitute real legal systems of law.

#2. You make a good point regarding the normal legal system to enforce laws that relate to doping. In Canada, the US, the UK, unlike in France, doping is not a criminal offence and therefore these legal systems does not prosecute doping cases, unless perhaps there is fraud.

There is a good argument to be made that doping should be a criminal offence as it may have a better deterrent effect than arbitration proceedings, if a doper knows she or he could go to jail. Given the extent and the seriousness of the Armstrong - USPS case there is plenty of arguments to be made that this behaviour should be crimes.

 

[frenchfry]

Of course they won't. The haters are too wrapped up in claiming that Armstrong is Asmodeus and everyone who opposes him is a version of Ghandi or Mother Teresa. Shades of gray are not allowed.

The thing is that Armstrong just makes it so easy to be a hater. So much so that being a hater gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over.

Being a hater means that I don't waste a lot of energy worrying if Armstrong's punishment is excessive or not. He got what was coming to him, and even then he is getting off relatively easy considering all the harm he has done to so many people, and that is before taking into account the Livestrong scam where he used cancer for all the wrong reasons.

Being a hater also means that I don't worry about the motivations of those who opposed Armstrong along the way. Even if Betsy, Frankie, Greg and others had their own less than noble ulterior motives I really don't care, they were the good guys in this story.

Being a hater means that I am comfortable with my simplistic black and white view on this, even though I am not normally a black and white kind of person.

 

[Archibald]

I dunno.

I've been enjoying Bro's posts. They're well written, and I like that.

I just think he's arguing the objective against the subjective. The larger scene of doping in cycling as whole, versus the Lancecentric myopia of LA's evilness in the whole of cycling.

There is no doubt that LA's an evil d*uche, and I don't think Bro would argue that.

I think his point is that cycling was rotten before LA showed up, and it's still rotten, because not really much has changed since the Grand Denouement of Armstrong.

This certainly doesn't change that fact that LA needs a serious *ss-handing, but it does lend some needed context.

Maybe I'm wrong...

don't think you are. I can see his point of view, and also that of the others. Has been an interesting back n forth to read.

At the same time, I've still got a foot planted firmly here too...

The thing is that Armstrong just makes it so easy to be a hater. So much so that being a hater gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over.

Being a hater means that I don't waste a lot of energy worrying if Armstrong's punishment is excessive or not. He got what was coming to him, and even then he is getting off relatively easy considering all the harm he has done to so many people, and that is before taking into account the Livestrong scam where he used cancer for all the wrong reasons.

Being a hater also means that I don't worry about the motivations of those who opposed Armstrong along the way. Even if Betsy, Frankie, Greg and others had their own less than noble ulterior motives I really don't care, they were the good guys in this story.

Being a hater means that I am comfortable with my simplistic black and white view on this, even though I am not normally a black and white kind of person.

 

[Netserk]

Yes, I was - as this was the relevant part that I highlighted to Mark.


Now if you want to step up and show them all, then show them.

This was your post. Try to read it again:

Hi Mark,
Which facts were there, I didn't see any.
I would be more than happy to reply in a substantive way when you find some.

If you didn't see any facts, you didn't see a single one.

Was that honest or dishonest?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Not responding to anyone in particular.

I've no doubt there are a lot more dirt laying around. I hope we get to see more, but in a accelerate way. I really couldn't care less about who gets sprayed as long as we move forward with the exposure.

 

[a-team]

At the same time, I've still got a foot planted firmly here too...

I detected a hint of sarcasm in his post? A snipe at some of the slightly unbalanced opinions?

 

[ebandit]

haterZ

The problem with this place is there are too many haters who only view reality through the bottom of a glass filled with bile.

i like the new lovin' bro .........let's look forward to the new pleasant forum
where bro no longer insults all and sundry

alas i am glad to be a hater...........lance is the only cyclist i have ever hated
and we all know why .........no need for defence of myself there

but bro? why your apparent change of direction.........is it as other members suggest really all just to oppose RR?

ah well..............i had hoped

Mark L

 

[Granville57]

I've been enjoying Bro's posts. They're well written, and I like that.

I think his point is that cycling was rotten before LA showed up, and it's still rotten, because not really much has changed since the Grand Denouement of Armstrong.

But no one seems to be arguing otherwise. So if that were his point, I fail to see what point he is making.

As usually happens, the discussion quickly shifts from whatever the given topic is (in this case, Hincapie's interview with the Detroit Free Press) to a discussion about the discussion. BroDeal objected to the discussion about Hincapie's motives but some of us weren't quite finished with that discussion

And around, around we go.

 

[Benotti69]

I think he just doesn't like RR very much.

Not getting that from his posts.

What I am getting is that LA got an unfair ban in comparison to others for doping. I agree. Those Garmin boys got 0 ban till JV said a 6month ban looks better albeit over the winter.

People are taking in all of Armstrong's '******ry', which USADA is not there for.

Pantani bullied Tafi in 2000 but did not get a lifeban! This is one example of where Armstrong feels unfairly punished.

I dont give a fig that Armstrong got unfairly treated. He tried to destroy the system so didn't play 'fair' in the first place. But plenty have not played fair. It is hardly a fair sport is it?

I am happy that he has a lifetime ban, but in the rider doping scheme of things he did get more than what might be deemed 'fair'. Ricco only got 12years and he got busted 3 times.

 

[the sceptic]

Can we get back to talking about Lance using Hincapie as a puppet to smear the Andreus? I enjoyed that narrative.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Either way I apparently just got a red card for saying something mean about Net_erk so I'm gonna leave this one be, for now.

Me too. I guess the reporting post function is becoming more popular.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not getting that from his posts.

What I am getting is that LA got an unfair ban in comparison to others for doping. I agree. Those Garmin boys got 0 ban till JV said a 6month ban looks better albeit over the winter.

People are taking in all of Armstrong's '******ry', which USADA is not there for.

Pantani bullied Tafi in 2000 but did not get a lifeban! This is one example of where Armstrong feels unfairly punished.

I dont give a fig that Armstrong got unfairly treated. He tried to destroy the system so didn't play 'fair' in the first place. But plenty have not played fair. It is hardly a fair sport is it?

I am happy that he has a lifetime ban, but in the rider doping scheme of things he did get more than what might be deemed 'fair'. Ricco only got 12years and he got busted 3 times.

That his entire post is predicated on the fact that he has an inside source, and then makes statements of facts on that doesn't strike you as parody seems mystifying. He is parodying what he thinks RR does. Nothing more.

As for Armstrong, it's stupid to suggest that any other rider did as much damage outside of cycling to people who questioned them. Ridiculous. Keep telling yourself he's the same as JV or Pantani if it helps you sleep. It's a stupid assertion, but hey, we all gotta answer to our agenda.

 

[Scott SoCal]

was this not about Frankie teaching George how to dope? That is BS. George can tell the truth, but when he starts to lie for others, its difficult to discern what is not BS

This.

Bro can claim George is telling the truth. The Andreu's contest that.

That Betsy holds her line seems to pose a real problem for some.

I really like the fact that Frankie came clean without being coerced to. Speaks volumes and it's certainly something George never, ever would have done.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not getting that from his posts.

What I am getting is that LA got an unfair ban in comparison to others for doping. I agree. Those Garmin boys got 0 ban till JV said a 6month ban looks better albeit over the winter.

People are taking in all of Armstrong's '******ry', which USADA is not there for.

Pantani bullied Tafi in 2000 but did not get a lifeban! This is one example of where Armstrong feels unfairly punished.

I dont give a fig that Armstrong got unfairly treated. He tried to destroy the system so didn't play 'fair' in the first place. But plenty have not played fair. It is hardly a fair sport is it?

I am happy that he has a lifetime ban, but in the rider doping scheme of things he did get more than what might be deemed 'fair'. Ricco only got 12years and he got busted 3 times.

And everyone is up in arms about the sweet deals given to others, and I don't get it. The reality is, that is a common way to get people to talk. Those people talked. What none of you bottle carriers seem to get is what Lance did in the face of everything up until the Oprah interview. What was that? The same sh!t he'd done all along. Made PR statements, and threw accusations, threats, and behind the scenes influence to try to crush those against him. If you think Sensenbrenner's inquiry into USADA funding at the exact time they were presenting their case against Armstrong was just some innocent coincidence, you're a fool.

Also remember that all that time, he was taking huge PR sh!ts on USADA, Tygart, and all of the people who were saying he did it. He NEVER went in to talk to anyone about what really happened until he decided to try to control his plummet to earth by talking to Oprah. Armstrong could have tried to make his own deal. He didn't. All he did was act like he's always acted, and continues to act. Sh!t in, sh!t out. SSDD.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not getting that from his posts.

Hmm, you're not?
I am sure you will come up with a good explanation. Let's see...

What I am getting is that LA got an unfair ban in comparison to others for doping. I agree. Those Garmin boys got 0 ban till JV said a 6month ban looks better albeit over the winter.

People are taking in all of Armstrong's '******ry', which USADA is not there for.

Pantani bullied Tafi in 2000 but did not get a lifeban! This is one exampe of where Armstrong feels unfairly punished.

I dont give a fig that Armstrong got unfairly treated. He tried to destroy the system so didn't play 'fair' in the first place. But plenty have not played fair. It is hardly a fair sport is it?

I am happy that he has a lifetime ban, but in the rider doping scheme of things he did get more than what might be deemed 'fair'. Ricco only got 12years and he got busted 3 times.

It was tough wasn't it- to try and say that LA deserved a lifetime ban, but that it was also unfair.

This is probably why you suggested that LAs ban was merely for doping.
I am sure you know that's untrue - he did not co-operate with USADA, you cannot expect the same deal.

I like Bro - and I hope he is just yanking our chain, but it's pretty apparent that the Anti RR campaign has been stepped up.

 

[Race Radio]

I think his point is that cycling was rotten before LA showed up, and it's still rotten, because not really much has changed since the Grand Denouement of Armstrong.
.

I don't think many would disagree with that if that was his point, but it isn't. It is the revisionist history designed to smear those told the truth that people disagree with.

Bro paints Frankie as an outcast who would not follow the rules of the sport.....yet USPS hired him and Lance personally begged Frankie to return as the team needed his guidance on the road. VDV did the same thing, telling him that if he just got on the doping program he would crush the classics. ...... Which is it? Is Frankie the pusher who is the junkie equal of George and lance or the guy who was let go because he would not, as Bro writes, follow the rules of the sport and take EPO?

Spewing nonsense about Betsy is designed to do one thing, provoke a response. Clog the toilet. The idea that Betsy was chasing after lance from 2001 is absurd. There were plenty of people talking **** about Lance then. The first time I heard about the hospital room Stephanie name was attached, not Betsy's. Lance did not say anything about Betsy until a training camp prior to the 2004 season. George said nothing until after the 2004 Tour de France. According to Bro she was 3 + years into her jihad by then. If Betsy was on a quest to ruin Lance why did she and Frankie refused to give a deposition for the SCA case when the subpoena came from the Texas court? They only testified when they were forced to by the court of Michigan.

The smear would not be complete with tossing the LeMonds in there as well. Betsy is now painted as a tool of their evil plans. That is comically crazy

Lastly, painting Frankie as outcast, hated by Vaughters and the sport is insane. It would be hard to find anyone to talk badly about Frankie. Betsy and JV are painted by Lance to be on their "Global Victory Tour" but JV hates Frankie because he "Abused" their friendship? Absurd.

Some posters like to pretend there were "Facts" in Bro's post but most can see there were none, just another attempt to smear those who told the truth......spurred on by a "Source".

 

[Race Radio]

Pantani bullied Tafi in 2000 but did not get a lifeban! This is one example of where Armstrong feels unfairly punished.

Pantani never signed the WADA code.

 

[DirtyWorks]

(3) Why is your representation of the Andreu-Armstrong conflict more reliable than Brodeal's representation.

Brodeal's source on the matter has a very interesting view of the events that **miraculously** cast Wonderboy as some kind of victim. Armstrong as victim... Where have we seen that story used before? Where have we seen petty personal attacks used as the basis for being a victim?

I read that question as believing Brodeal's claims are a likely explanation. Did I read that wrong?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I don't think many would disagree with that if that was his point, but it isn't. It is the revisionist history designed to smear those told the truth that people disagree with.

Haha! It's sort of like the popularity of those "historical fiction" movies.

This post is based on actual events...

Based on. May not contain the actual events...

At least it's entertaining.

 

[MarkvW]

Brodeal's source on the matter has a very interesting view of the events that **miraculously** cast Wonderboy as some kind of victim. Armstrong as victim... Where have we seen that story used before? Where have we seen petty personal attacks used as the basis for being a victim?

I read that question as believing Brodeal's claims are a likely explanation. Did I read that wrong?

If you think I am casting Armstrong as a victim, you are mistaken. However you resolve the Brodeal / Race Radio alternative histories, the fact remains that Lance was the leader of the largest doping conspiracy so far, by far. Additionally, I don't think that the Andreus' story (whatever it is) impacts Armstrong's score on the Jerk scale at all. Even if it did, it wouldn't matter because Armstrong is astronomically, logarithmically, off the Jerk scale.

Race Radio has over the years woven an Andreu narrative for us. That narrative is consistent with the available attributable facts. Brodeal has also presented us with a narrative that is consistent with the available attributable facts.

I am skeptical of both narratives. The Brodeal narrative is a recasting of things Hincapie has said. Hincapie has a big stake in preserving his cycling reputation. He has a great financial interest in painting himself as 'just one of the boys' and not as a profoundly dishonest cheat. He's got his hotel, his clothing brand, and his cycling team at stake. Other than that, I can't see why it's not true.

The Race Radio narrative suffers much from it's presentation. A challenge to his version of the facts brings vulgarity ("clogging the toilet"), innuendo, loaded questions, and often an attack on the challenger's own motivations (or "agenda"). That inspires no confidence in his narrative. He doesn't offer any more sources for his narrative than Brodeal does for his. We must rely upon his implication that he is an 'insider.' Other than that, I can't see why it's not true.

On balance, I like Brodeal's narrative a little more than Race Radio's. The only reason is that it seems more consonant with my understanding of human nature. It does seem like Frankie was just one of the boys (domestiques). I don't favor the 'psychological' component of Brodeal's narrative.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If you think I am casting Armstrong as a victim, you are mistaken.

That was not my intention. I wasn't making it personal in any way. My fault for not wording that better.

Race Radio has over the years woven an Andreu narrative for us. That narrative is consistent with the available attributable facts. Brodeal has also presented us with a narrative that is consistent with the available attributable facts.

Disagree. What is suggested in the BroDeal retelling is Armstrong cast as a victim and very consistent actors in the story suddenly becoming as darkly motivated and inconsistent as Wonderboy. When has Wonderboy EVER been a victim in this whole mess of Tailwind/UCI's making? Only after his sanction came down.

The Brodeal narrative is a recasting of things Hincapie has said.

It's a dramatic retelling. "Historical fiction" is an excellent phrase to describe it.

Hincapie has a big stake in preserving his cycling reputation.

Other than the symbolic sanction, he's gotten off Scott free.

No one in their right mind would recommend, "You should find a writer to create some more doping controversy in the press. It will help drive sales to your various hobbies." Maybe Bernie Madhoff should do a similar interview. It will do wonders for his public opinion too.