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

[aphronesis]

Reality is - taking money from the USPS, donators to Livestrong.org, and cancer victims on the basis of fraud, false pretences and misrepresentation is not minor league or imagined. This actually happened. As Tygart said, it was the biggest and most sophisticated fraud in sporting history supported by a legion of evidence.

To sustain the fraud Armstrong engaged in intimidation, harassment, perjury, defamation, and obstruction of justice. So unless you live in the galactic nethrerlands, devoid of real earth news, that may not sound like enough for you, but it is enough for 99.999% of the population on Earth.

Ontological nominalism at its finest.

 

[sittingbison]

come on gentle(wo)men,
desist with the trolling baiting insults

Keep it on Wonderboy, and the content of posts please. Not the poster

cheers
bison

 

[the sceptic]

come on gentle(wo)men,
desist with the trolling baiting insults

Keep it on Wonderboy, and the content of posts please. Not the poster

cheers
bison

Do you mind giving some examples of who broke the rules? Its hard to know.

I take it the post reports started flying?

 

[eleven]

Yup. It was hardly a discussion limited to this forum. Multiple media outlets questioned the political motivation of a major donation that was completely outside of Livestrong's charter at the same time his criminal case was dropped.

How is cancer screening outside of their charter? I don't have any trouble believing it was politically motivated but it seems within the scope of their mission.

 

[D-Queued]

Do you mind giving some examples of who broke the rules? Its hard to know.

I take it the post reports started flying?

I have deleted my initial response since we aren't supposed to have this discussion here.

Can I suggest that you take this to another thread (e.g. Moderators in http://forum.cyclingnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11), or perhaps PM sittingbison?

Dave.

 

[Stingray34]

Ontological nominalism at its finest.

You're an intelligent person, with an enviable vocabulary.

Without resorting to some kind of devil's advocate role, why do you persist in defending the indefensible?

You remind me of the disaffected guy who sabotaged the mine elevator in Zola's Germinal.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As Tygart said, it was the biggest and most sophisticated fraud in sporting history supported by a legion of evidence.

Wondering how it compares to Don King?

Or Balco, where they invented a brand new drug that, if not for an insider snitching, would never have been detected.

Or every IOC location awarded since time immemorial.

Too OT? Apologies if so.

 

[SirLes]

surely the most sophisticated frauds are the ones that haven't been found out yet?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

As Tygart said, it was the biggest and most sophisticated fraud in sporting history supported by a legion of evidence.

USADA's claim was as follows:

"The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Whilst one can question the bolded bit - the East Germans were pretty successful, one recalls - there is no reference to fraud, biggest or otherwise.

As Dear Wiggo suggests, there is plenty of competition for the biggest fraud. One can quickly add ref-bribing in Italian football and match-fixing to any consideration re fraud. The sums of money involved here - particularly match-fixing - would quickly dwarf anything that Lance garnered through his activities.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

surely the most sophisticated frauds are the ones that haven't been found out yet?

This very thought occurred to me too - but thought I'd stick with what I'd heard

USADA's claim was as follows:

"The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Whilst one can question the bolded bit - the East Germans were pretty successful, one recalls - there is no reference to fraud, biggest or otherwise.

Thanks for the doping vs fraud clarification.

 

[aphronesis]

You're an intelligent person, with an enviable vocabulary.

Without resorting to some kind of devil's advocate role, why do you persist in defending the indefensible?

You remind me of the disaffected guy who sabotaged the mine elevator in Zola's Germinal.

Not clapping with both hands on my knees doesn't equate to defending.

Something other than a tired rehearsal of the same would be nice though.

Good that someone on this thread read Zola: didn't really take though...

 

[Alpe73]

Something other than a tired rehearsal of the same would be nice though.

Of course, a reasonable expectation ... of a discussion board ... one might suppose.

However, on this particular thread, most contributors are at the sentencing phase of 'their' judicial process and are keen to voice (looping) victim impact statements. Perpetuates sameness, but it's one beauty of an avoidance behaviour.

 

[thehog]

USADA's claim was as follows:

"The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Whilst one can question the bolded bit - the East Germans were pretty successful, one recalls - there is no reference to fraud, biggest or otherwise.

As Dear Wiggo suggests, there is plenty of competition for the biggest fraud. One can quickly add ref-bribing in Italian football and match-fixing to any consideration re fraud. The sums of money involved here - particularly match-fixing - would quickly dwarf anything that Lance garnered through his activities.

Whilst not doping but match fixing (fraud) and the amounts of money in cricket far outstrip anything in relation to USPS. And is very well organised.

Once we have the totality of facts the doping component of USPS probably won't be the most fraudulent element. If there is collusion with the UCI to effectively "fix" the result there's big problems. A tie in with SCA is relevant here along with any other types of bets placed. I have zero sympathy for SCA but it may be that Armstrong wasn't the only one to prosper from that deal.

We shall see. We shall see.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Ontological nominalism at its finest.

Disingenuous amorphous etymology at its best.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Wallace and Gromit;1539137]USADA's claim was as follows:

"The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Have you read the Reasoned Decision? I assume you have. Is there any doubt? If you are a reasonable person and I assume you are - there is none.

As a former Crown Prosecutor for 15 years I had to prove cases all the time beyond a reasonable doubt. Some were sophisticated fraud cases.

I have read the Reasoned Decision and like my legal colleague Travis Tygart (a lawyer) the proof of the sophistication and success of the USPS doping program has been proved beyond any doubt.

Any failure to see that would invite the suggestion you are myoptic.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Disingenuous amorphous etymology at its best.

It puffs him up... but it's 50-cent words to the rest of us.

 

[Race Radio]

Stop at Nothing Documentary

http://www.npo.nl/3doc/25-07-2014/VPWON_1203538

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Dear Wiggo;1539124]Wondering how it compares to Don King? Or Balco, where they invented a brand new drug that, if not for an insider snitching, would never have been detected. Or every IOC location awarded since time immemorial. Too OT? Apologies if so

It is one thing to throw out names. It is another to provide the specifics of the doping programs that compare the "sophistication, professionalism and success" of the USPS doping program in order to compare it to others and thus not give it the epithet "most" Throwing out names does not do that. For example Don King has been a scoundrel, but I am not aware of his running a doping program.

I recognize there have been other sophisticated and successful doping programs or scandals, but I doubt you could find anywhere the neat, concise, clear, unequivocal, incontrovertible set of facts and overwhelming evidence that prove the USPS case beyond any doubt. That is the point Tygart was getting at when he made his statement.

For example in the Fuentes case there was a lot of equivocal evidence and they did not pursue against him issues relating to fraud, false pretences and misrepresentation and they had to settle going after him for endangering public health. These offenses are regulatory offences much easier to prove.

Keep in mind Tygart has seen and read about a lot of doping cases. That is a huge part of his job. He also routinely keeps current on the decisions and the law of not just the USADA cases, but also the other NADA arbitration decisions and of course the case law of CAS.

Having read the Reasoned Decision myself and knowing what I do about Tygart's knowledge of doping cases, I will happily accept Tygart's informed opinion.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It puffs him up... but it's 50-cent words to the rest of us.

No, I was just responding to pseudo-intellectualism with pseudo intellectualism as a means of showing how silly was his comment. I don't use big words to puff myself up, I am quite secure thank you.

 

[aphronesis]

No, I was just responding to pseudo-intellectualism with pseudo intellectualism as a means of showing how silly was his comment. I don't use big words to puff myself up, I am quite secure thank you.

He was talking about me. I could have used plain simple words, but then you'd get (more) defensive and a mod would come by and so on.

Yes, pseudo-intellectualism, always the out for those who can't respond.

Try it this way then: repeating a bone simple truism doesn't make it more truthful.

 

[Bosco10]

David Walsh speaking at a RSA Conference last week:

http://youtu.be/hTQ2OMp3tr4
http://youtu.be/cU0yyuRr8xU

 

[BroDeal]

Have you read the Reasoned Decision? I assume you have. Is there any doubt? If you are a reasonable person and I assume you are - there is none.

As a former Crown Prosecutor for 15 years I had to prove cases all the time beyond a reasonable doubt. Some were sophisticated fraud cases.

I have read the Reasoned Decision and like my legal colleague Travis Tygart (a lawyer) the proof of the sophistication and success of the USPS doping program has been proved beyond any doubt.

Any failure to see that would invite the suggestion you are myoptic.

You must not have read the reasoned decision. No where is it proven that USPS had the most sophisticated doping program in sport. That was rhetoric, grandstanding by USADA to get its name in the news. USPS' program was nothing compared to BALCO manufacturing its own undetectable steroids, which USADA was fully aware of because it had a hand in that investigation. In fact, USPS' program was not even the most sophisticated program of the teams that various witnesses rode for. That honor would probably go to Liberty Seguros or even T-Mobile. Those teams did not have riders storing blood in their closets. They used medical professionals.

What Landis proved, contrary to what USADA would have people believe, is that winning the Tour does not require a sophisticated program. All that is needed is blood transfusions and a little anabolics plus someone like Allen Lim to transport a blood bag.

The purpose of USADA's exaggeration has been to make one team appear more culpable than others. The scapegoating is an attempt to play down the systemic nature of doping in cycling. Tygart's desire for fame and publicity has damaged the fight against doping by vilifying individuals instead of the environment the individuals are required to work in. USADA's distortion of the facts worked so well with Armstrong that Tygart used the same ploy with A-Rod, claiming A-Rod's program was the most potent doping program they had ever seen. What was A-Rod using? Testosterone and a few peptides.

 

[Scott SoCal]

No, I was just responding to pseudo-intellectualism with pseudo intellectualism as a means of showing how silly was his comment. I don't use big words to puff myself up, I am quite secure thank you.

You mis-understand... I was referring to Skippy, err Aphro.

 

[Scott SoCal]

You must not have read the reasoned decision. No where is it proven that USPS had the most sophisticated doping program in sport. That was rhetoric, grandstanding by USADA to get its name in the news. USPS' program was nothing compared to BALCO manufacturing its own undetectable steroids, which USADA was fully aware of because it had a hand in that investigation. In fact, USPS' program was not even the most sophisticated program of the teams that various witnesses rode for. That honor would probably go to Liberty Seguros or even T-Mobile. Those teams did not have riders storing blood in their closets. They used medical professionals.

What Landis proved, contrary to what USADA would have people believe, is that winning the Tour does not require a sophisticated program. All that is needed is blood transfusions and a little anabolics plus someone like Allen Lim to transport a blood bag.

The purpose of USADA's exaggeration has been to make one team appear more culpable than others. The scapegoating is an attempt to play down the systemic nature of doping in cycling. Tygart's desire for fame and publicity has damaged the fight against doping by vilifying individuals instead of the environment the individuals are required to work in. USADA's distortion of the facts worked so well with Armstrong that Tygart used the same ploy with A-Rod, claiming A-Rod's program was the most potent doping program they had ever seen. What was A-Rod using? Testosterone and a few peptides.

Landis didn't even get away with it once, much less seven times....

Sophistication can mean much. Like colluding with the UCI as an example.

 

[Energy Starr]

It's probably the most sophisticated and successful doping program I've ever heard of. I haven't heared of everything, but I can't think of one that would rival it right now. Seven years of pure success and never getting actually caught with a positive (until it was revealed that he actually was caught) is pretty good. The program made use of the drugs, the payoffs, the intimidation, the collusion, the motoman. Come on, that's pretty good stuff. All Balco did was make some good drugs and tell people how to use them and beat the tests. Barry Bonds didn't even have a motoman.