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

[MarkvW]

That sounds like a McQuaidism.. lol

You really can't use the "You aren't cheating if you aren't caught." argument to define Lance's situation, because Lance was caught. He was caught so well, that he didn't even appeal.

 

[the sceptic]

Lance raced clean because "no one" thought he was doping at the time? You'd better refine that argument some before you take it to prime time.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it fall, does that mean the tree didn't fall?

I dislike Lance as much as the next guy but I have more sympathy for him than governments and large corporations.

Lance did race clean in the eyes of the general american public, which is what I assume the sponsor would care about. So imo they got exactly what they paid for, and thus it's absurd that now Lance has to pay them back on top of that.

 

[the delgados]

I am a union organizer and am obviously biased.
That said, none of this would be happening if pro riders had a union.
Pro athletes dope. Full stop. It happens in every sport where money is to be made by both the owners and athletes.
Seems to me that both the owners and athletes in cycling should get together and decide among themselves how the issue should be dealt with and negotiate a legally binding collective agreement.
They do it in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.
We rarely hear of doping infractions in those leagues, but people would be kidding themselves if they think doping isn't rampant in any sport mentioned above.
In my not so humble opinion, doping will always be a part of sports. And if those responsible for marketing the sport want to make money, they should come to terms with those who participate in said sport and come to some sort of agreement.
Otherwise we will always be subject to this soap opera in cycling.

 

[Bosco10]

Based on his last few rounds, Tigers has lost his wood, and is going downhill with Lindsay.

I saw the terrible round Tiger had on Friday. Shot an 82 for last place and a missed cut. Worst tournament score in his career. But I think he still has some mojo inside him, if he doesn't re-injure himself. Folks forget that Tiger had a great season in 2013 -- five wins and Player of the Year.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I saw the terrible round Tiger had on Friday. Shot an 82 for last place and a missed cut. Worst tournament score in his career. But I think he still has some mojo inside him, if he doesn't re-injure himself. Folks forget that Tiger had a great season in 2013 -- five wins and Player of the Year.

Tiger messed up his life in public..I don't think that helped his game.

and to sceptic:" Lance did race clean in the eyes of the general american public, which is what I assume the sponsor would care about. So imo they got exactly what they paid for, .."
NO ..if I was the sponsor I would be PO'd..and it is not about 'getting what they paid for'

 

[MarkvW]

I am a union organizer and am obviously biased.
That said, none of this would be happening if pro riders had a union.
Pro athletes dope. Full stop. It happens in every sport where money is to be made by both the owners and athletes.
Seems to me that both the owners and athletes in cycling should get together and decide among themselves how the issue should be dealt with and negotiate a legally binding collective agreement.
They do it in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.
We rarely hear of doping infractions in those leagues, but people would be kidding themselves if they think doping isn't rampant in any sport mentioned above.
In my not so humble opinion, doping will always be a part of sports. And if those responsible for marketing the sport want to make money, they should come to terms with those who participate in said sport and come to some sort of agreement.
Otherwise we will always be subject to this soap opera in cycling.

I completely agree about unionization. Pro cyclists (excepting the stars) are treated like peons and are expected to like it. Dope testing and all its over-elaborate rules and procedures are imposed upon the riders without any kind of meaningful bargaining. It is totally unfair, and yet people are eternally willing to accept it. The scum at the top of the UCI is to blame for this. The UCI is not a rider's union--it is a cycling promoter's union. Sport is all about making rules for fair competition--and cutting the riders out of that process is about as unfair as you can get. Imposing WADA and its hypertechnical code on riders without collective bargaining is just BS.

I agree that there will be more doping if riders are treated fairly, but I reckon that is the price that needs to be paid. If cyclists are too stupid to see that doping is bad for them (and almost all of them surely are), then that's their tough luck.

On the other hand, I like the filthy soap opera aspect of cycling. It is a corrupt drama played out over and over. And it's always been that way! Tradition! It's like watching political corruption from a distance. The fascination never gets old.

Besides, so long as the corrupt UCI maintains its good old boy small time regime, the sport will stay small. And if the sport stays small, fewer kids get sucked into its unforgiving, doped-up maw.

 

[D-Queued]

Well first I would like to apologize to all of the SENIOR clinic members for my "strong" post. I will also try to get many more posts to be at YOUR level. I was not aware of the internet rules.

My post was not to Bash Frankie. Or to debate his timeline for admission or the validity of his contrition.

My point was. Lance is an @55. He deserves what he is getting. But if you cooperated with USADA or any other entity to drop the Hammer on Him. Now he is going on the offensive. If Frankie/Betsie or any off the others have to whine about answering for there previous depositions/actions. And pony up some $ for legal fees. TOO BAD! They took a stand. And IMHO it was the right one. So stick to your guns! Don't whine about the fight! It's not over. He/Lance is now on offense. He was on defense. Now he has the "Ball" (no pun intended...maybe). Stick to your guns was my point.

This is all a consequence of our legal system here in the USA. Lance gets to face his accusers and ask questions. And there version must be bullet proof. Again they choose a stand. Hold it!

And yes I apologize again. I know I know, you can only make a point in the clinic if you have MANY posts.

I realize that there have been many posts since yours, but didn't want you to feel that everyone was ignoring you because you have a low post count.

Thank you for clarifying yourself. Not sure it will get you much support for this position, however.

Just to clarify, your version of the US Justice system is that if you are subpoenaed and make a deposition or otherwise testify, you should get screwed with legal fees every time the guilty party needs to face justice and has yet another matter before the courts?

Sounds like witness intimidation.

Maybe McIlvain did the right thing after all, and just lied.

Nice system.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

I am a union organizer and am obviously biased.
That said, none of this would be happening if pro riders had a union.
Pro athletes dope. Full stop. It happens in every sport where money is to be made by both the owners and athletes.
Seems to me that both the owners and athletes in cycling should get together and decide among themselves how the issue should be dealt with and negotiate a legally binding collective agreement.
They do it in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.
We rarely hear of doping infractions in those leagues, but people would be kidding themselves if they think doping isn't rampant in any sport mentioned above.
In my not so humble opinion, doping will always be a part of sports. And if those responsible for marketing the sport want to make money, they should come to terms with those who participate in said sport and come to some sort of agreement.
Otherwise we will always be subject to this soap opera in cycling.

Cyclists do have a union. It is called the UCI, the International Cycling Union. Some kind of International Brotherhood, or something.

I like your bias. You want to promote unionization in sport so that the doping can remain hidden.

Good one. We should all support unions more vigorously.

Dave.

 

[the delgados]

Cyclists do have a union. It is called the UCI, the International Cycling Union. Some kind of International Brotherhood, or something.

I like your bias. You want to promote unionization in sport so that the doping can remain hidden.

Good one. We should all support unions more vigorously.

Dave.

Dave, I think your anti-union bias is showing. Opinions about doping aside, my point is that riders should have a say in how the system works. You say they have a union, but they don't. Cyclists cannot sit down with owners and collectively decide how the sport should be governed. They do not have a collective agreement that allows them to say yes or no. Cycling is the wild west of sports, where riders are pitted against one another and people accuse others of being fanboys (which is totally absurd).

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, I think your anti-union bias is showing. Opinions about doping aside, my point is that riders should have a say in how the system works. You say they have a union, but they don't. Cyclists cannot sit down with owners and collectively decide how the sport should be governed. They do not have a collective agreement that allows them to say yes or no. Cycling is the wild west of sports, where riders are pitted against one another and people accuse others of being fanboys (which is totally absurd).

Fanboys exist.

Unfortunately.

How is a rider like Lance not able to sit down with an owner like Lance who also has tremendous control over how the sport is governed, going so far as to collaborate with the sport governance (e.g. Hein) to try and purchase the Super Bowl equivalent?

I am confused, especially in this Lance Armstrong thread.

Why are unions against dope testing?

Dave.

 

[9000ft]

I dislike Lance as much as the next guy but I have more sympathy for him than governments and large corporations.

Lance did race clean in the eyes of the general american public, which is what I assume the sponsor would care about. So imo they got exactly what they paid for, and thus it's absurd that now Lance has to pay them back on top of that.

Do you really think whether or not LA raced clean or not was that big of a deal in the eyes of the majority of the general American public? "Fans" want spectacular performances, even many, probably most of the so called "real" cycling fans who post on forums like CN lament "boring" performances with one breath while clucking about a rider who performs too well (a guy just can't win). Yep, plenty of righteous indignation about PEDs in pro sports, unless it means our highly paid entertainers put on a more typically human show.

 

[the delgados]

Fanboys exist.

Unfortunately.

How is a rider like Lance not able to sit down with an owner like Lance who also has tremendous control over how the sport is governed, going so far as to collaborate with the sport governance (e.g. Hein) to try and purchase the Super Bowl equivalent?

I am confused, especially in this Lance Armstrong thread.

Why are unions against dope testing?

Dave.

Lance essentially became an owner, in the sense he dictated the terms and conditions of Lance, not the riders.
There are a million examples to support my claim, and I know I don't have to list them to you.
I am not a union representative for pro athletes, so I cannot answer your question, no matter how loaded it is.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the majority of pro sports leagues comprise of grown adults that have collective bargaining rights. I'm not privy to negotiations, but it seems to me that unionized athletes have come to a mutual agreement with owners that prevents the kind of scandals we see in cycling.
So i guess I'll ask you: Why do sports owners support doping?

 

[MarkvW]

Lance essentially became an owner, in the sense he dictated the terms and conditions of Lance, not the riders.
There are a million examples to support my claim, and I know I don't have to list them to you.
I am not a union representative for pro athletes, so I cannot answer your question, no matter how loaded it is.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the majority of pro sports leagues comprise of grown adults that have collective bargaining rights. I'm not privy to negotiations, but it seems to me that unionized athletes have come to a mutual agreement with owners that prevents the kind of scandals we see in cycling.
So i guess I'll ask you: Why do sports owners support doping?

Or, perhaps asked another way: Why are there no team bans for doping?

 

[DirtyWorks]

But if you cooperated with USADA or any other entity to drop the Hammer on Him. Now he is going on the offensive.

Ok, you are mixing things up here. Sport administration is mostly handled through arbitration. Which is another thing entirely from the Fed's case.

If Frankie/Betsie or any off the others have to whine about answering for there previous depositions/actions. And pony up some $ for legal fees. TOO BAD! They took a stand. And IMHO it was the right one. So stick to your guns! ....Don't whine about the fight! It's not over.

That's kind of easy to say when it isn't you. Any chance you want to pitch in four or five figures in $USD to help? This is one easy example of the very high cost of being right.

I'm sorry if I came off as hostile, but there are an endless stream of Armstrong faithful trying so hard to alter basic history by doggedly twisting simple facts. The more eyes/opinions on the situation, the better. But, it better be pretty well backed up, or posted as a question.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Cyclists do have a union. It is called the UCI, the International Cycling Union. Some kind of International Brotherhood, or something.

I like your bias. You want to promote unionization in sport so that the doping can remain hidden.

Good one. We should all support unions more vigorously.

Dave.

Okay, I'm not goint to touch the whole union topic, but just for the casual reader:

UCI: a federation of national cycling federations
Associated Pro Riders: the World Tour rider union

The most powerful forces in elite cycling would be the three "blessed" world tour promoters, ASO, RCS, Flanders group and the UCI. Riders and teams are powerless until the UCI favors some. ex. USPS

A great primer here:
http://inrng.com/2012/10/aigcp-cpa-mpcc-invisible/

 

[thehook]

Ok, you are mixing things up here. Sport administration is mostly handled through arbitration. Which is another thing entirely from the Fed's case.



That's kind of easy to say when it isn't you. Any chance you want to pitch in four or five figures in $USD to help? This is one easy example of the very high cost of being right.

I'm sorry if I came off as hostile, but there are an endless stream of Armstrong faithful trying so hard to alter basic history by doggedly twisting simple facts. The more eyes/opinions on the situation, the better. But, it better be pretty well backed up, or posted as a question.

It's all good bro! I enjoy a spirited discussion.

Lance now in this Qui Tam suit. Is defending his $. That coin was earned but with the aid of drugs. And destroying many others. He will answer for it. Floyd's actions in this litigation is not to clean up cycling. It is for FLOYD TO GET PAID!

Betsie did not like the fact that Lance was a ****** to Frankie in his Contract/Bonus dealings. That among many reasons are why she blew him up.

Floyd calls Lance looking for a job. Lance goes into ****** mode. Bang Qui Tam$.

The USADA 6 month clowns. Went on to keep making MONEY. After they gave Tygart what he wanted.

Yes sometimes our legal system is tough $. But it is the best we have. If the above mentioned group are so good willed about the future of sport. STOP CRYING about going to testify in a depo. And stand on your story. If you have been found to have been less then truthful. NOW Lance can HIT YOU$..........You can also give a deposition without an attorney (would never do that). What are YOU so scared of?

Also this is not a matter of sports arbitration. It is a Qui Tam suit. In which Floyd stands to gain big coin! Under his protections as a "whistleblower".

Cheers

 

[Oldman]

Lance essentially became an owner, in the sense he dictated the terms and conditions of Lance, not the riders.
There are a million examples to support my claim, and I know I don't have to list them to you.
I am not a union representative for pro athletes, so I cannot answer your question, no matter how loaded it is.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the majority of pro sports leagues comprise of grown adults that have collective bargaining rights. I'm not privy to negotiations, but it seems to me that unionized athletes have come to a mutual agreement with owners that prevents the kind of scandals we see in cycling.
So i guess I'll ask you: Why do sports owners support doping?

I agree and that's a line he crossed and manipulated like any other rider. Couple that with his rampant charity fraud and the sport needs to excise his influence completely.
It would be akin to Pete Rose not only betting on baseball but also conspiring with mobsters to fix bets. Add the cancer thing and you should get a lifetime ban X 10. Kind of like a multiple capital conviction.
As far as his current legal circumstance is concerned my opinion is unchanged: settle, give your remaining money to your kids and just disappear.

 

[DirtyWorks]

STOP CRYING about going to testify in a depo. And stand on your story. If you have been found to have been less then truthful. NOW Lance can HIT YOU$.

Again, this is too easy to post. I'm not sure how many depositions you've given, but they aren't fun or easy.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It would be akin to Pete Rose not only betting on baseball but also conspiring with Major League Baseball to win games.

Fixed that for you.

 

[rhubroma]

I dislike Lance as much as the next guy but I have more sympathy for him than governments and large corporations.

Lance did race clean in the eyes of the general american public, which is what I assume the sponsor would care about. So imo they got exactly what they paid for, and thus it's absurd that now Lance has to pay them back on top of that.

The case should not be decided upon what a stupid and hoodwinked cycling public thought, or didn't think about whether or not Lance was doping, but misuse of public funding while doping for imense private financial gain.

Lance, IMO, should only have a chance of getting off the hook if he can demonstrate US Postal knew all along he was.

On the other hand, I knew all along he was doping and don't much appreciate one cent of my tax dollars having been spent for his benefit, nor did I find his triumphs "spectacular," thus certainly didn't get what I paid for. How about that?

 

[blackcat]

On the other hand, I knew all along he was doping and don't much appreciate one cent of my tax dollars having been spent for his benefit, nor did I find his triumphs "spectacular," thus certainly didn't get what I paid for. How about that?

dont have an issue with this.

however.

devils advocate indicates Weisel has no probs getting his budget on the open market from a different sponsor.

The difference is, I think Team Armstrong and pocket change Weisel saw all sponsorships and endorsements just flowing to Team Armstrong so they saw it as an aggregation and accumulation of the sponsors. So Subaru sponsored Armstrong. And Hombre(famous poster from the DailyPeloton) went out and bought a Subaru.

 

[del1962]

dont have an issue with this.

however.

devils advocate indicates Weisel has no probs getting his budget on the open market from a different sponsor.

The difference is, I think Team Armstrong and pocket change Weisel saw all sponsorships and endorsements just flowing to Team Armstrong so they saw it as an aggregation and accumulation of the sponsors. So Subaru sponsored Armstrong. And Hombre(famous poster from the DailyPeloton) went out and bought a Subaru.

Subaru - quality and reliability (as are most Japanese cars), though they don't always look goog (see Justy), so at least he got a decent car

 

[rhubroma]

dont have an issue with this.

however.

devils advocate indicates Weisel has no probs getting his budget on the open market from a different sponsor.

The difference is, I think Team Armstrong and pocket change Weisel saw all sponsorships and endorsements just flowing to Team Armstrong so they saw it as an aggregation and accumulation of the sponsors. So Subaru sponsored Armstrong. And Hombre(famous poster from the DailyPeloton) went out and bought a Subaru.

Ok, but the case involves US Postal. The other sponsorship is thus irrelevent.

 

[blackcat]

Ok, but the case involves US Postal. The other sponsorship is thus irrelevent.

yep. they did not do great risk management

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/31073880

"No-one forced me to leave, I left of my own free will," he said, adding that Armstrong's sponsors cannot claim to be "victims" either because "they got their money's worth" in publicity.

On the issue of Armstrong's legal problems with the US federal government, Mercier said: "Nearly every rider who donned a USPS kit was involved in some sort of doping, and yet only Lance defrauded the government? All those guys were paid real money."

Armstrong and Mercier are now friends and often ride together when the disgraced Texan visits his holiday home in Colorado.

Armstrong mentioned Mercier in his recent BBC interview as an example of somebody who chose "integrity" over the career in professional cycling.
"I was never much of a Team Lance fan," Mercier explained.

"I knew he was lying and his arrogance and boorish behaviour made me cringe.
"However, my issue with him was never about his performance. He was, quite simply, the best of his generation and is one of the fiercest competitors the world has ever seen.

Bromance 2.0

I'm still trying to reconcile this nonsense.

True to past examples, it must mean that there is bad news about to be announced on one or more of the lawsuits. Lance just trying to lay down a smokescreen.

With respect to Mercier, though, maybe he didn't dope back then but what is he on now? How much did Lance pay him for the about face.

As a reminder, this was the tune that Mercier was singing just two years ago:

"One of the most powerful athletes in the world has been held accountable for his actions," said Scott Mercier


...

Mercier said that about four months ago, when Armstrong's doping past really became a part of the public conversation, he had a frank conversation with his wife.

"'Honey,' she said, 'aren't you glad you're not coming home and sitting down with your son and daughter - telling your kids that you're a lying fraud.'"

Some people are willing to do whatever it takes to win.

As for Armstrong's now-stripped away titles, he's not sure Armstrong couldn't have won without the drugs. As Armstrong has now said, he wanted to be a part of a level playing field by also doping - Mercier just doesn't think that's a legitimate argument.

Ok, Scott, how much did Lance pay you for the infomercial???

Dave.