• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 539 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
now you accept that maybe all that really happened is Armstrong's return influenced thinking on both sides
Exactly, The ASO and UCI went out of their way to facilitate Armstrong's return to the Tour, and central to making this happen was to get rid of Clerc because of his refusal to compromise on the doping issue. Whether Armstrong made direct demands or was in a given meeting or not is pretty much an irrelevance. As I said, the desire to see Armstrong smoothly return to the race demanded that Clerc be got rid of. (The report in Cyclismas, which seems to be the source of your views on this topic, incorrectly says he resigned). As such, to say Armstrong had 'nothing to do' with Clerc's departure is a nonsense.
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Robert21 said:
Bottom line is that Clerc's dismissal was all about his refusal to abandon his hard-line approach to doping, and the desire of both the ASO and the UCI to make the Tour a welcoming place for Armstrong for his comeback. As such, Armstrong (directly or indirectly) played a central role in the dismissal of Clerc.
That's your reading of it. Many, including Pierre Ballester, see that as utter nonsense, a stupid attempt by those who have to believe that LA, being the root of all evil, is at the centre of everything that happens in cycling
Really? Where did he say that? The reality is that Ballester dedicated a whole book to (Le Sale Tour) explaining the dirty politics of the Tour, including how Armstrong's return to the race was contingent on Clerc getting the push:
Le Sale Tour dissèque le système Armstrong et les conditions de son retour sur la prochaine Grande Boucle.

Le 9 septembre 2008, le jeune retraité texan annonce qu'il va reprendre du service pour "gagner un huitième Tour". Trois semaines plus tôt, à Pékin, en plein Jeux olympiques, l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI), fidèle soutien du coureur, signe la paix avec Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), le propriétaire du Tour, après cinq ans de conflit ; et, trois semaines plus tard, Patrice Clerc, qui semblait décidé à mener une politique antidopage susceptible de restaurer la crédibilité de la course, est officiellement débarqué de son poste de président d'ASO.

Pierre Ballester et David Walsh montrent l'imbrication de ces trois événements. Le Groupe Amaury, qui possède ASO, opère un changement de stratégie en se lançant dans la gestion des droits (marketing et audiovisuels) pour les Jeux olympiques. Condition : se rapprocher du Comité international olympique en se rabibochant avec l'UCI et en sacrifiant Patrice Clerc. Le champ est dès lors libre pour un retour de Lance Armstrong qui, rappellent les deux journalistes, ne désespère pas de racheter un jour l'épreuve.
http://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2009/06/03/le-sale-tour-de-pierre-ballester-et-david-walsh_1201779_3260.html
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

MarkvW said:
This story isn't making much of a ripple. Maybe Lance should endorse Donald Trump! . . .
I should think Wonderboy is rather indebted to the Clintons. ;) Although I doubt they'd want his endorsement. Conversely, I could see a scenario in which the Clintons secretly ask Lance to publicly endorse Trump.
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
In there any reason to believe that Clerc's fate, in the same period, didn't have the same purpose, and the same source?

Is there any reason not to be believe in unicorns, Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny?

You can believe what you want, even that LA was in the room at the Amaury/McQuaid meeting. But you have sod all evidence for it. As with many of the things you appear to believe in (such as eg that blood transfusions were being used regularly in cycling just because Merckx was once offered one and Zoetemelek once accepted).
 
Re: Re:

Robert21 said:


God but some of you do love that word even when you mean the exact opposite. Look, this is simiple. There is a world of difference between saying LA directly influenced - called for and got - Clerc's sacking and then turning around and saying that, well, you know, maybe the return of LA was on the minds of Amaury and McQuaid when they had their fateful meeting and maybe that return influenced their thinking and sped them along toward making a deal.

What you don't seem to get is that by bringing back KRZ (before LA announced his return) and by going around Clerc to get McQuaid dragged kicking and screaming to the talks table (before LA announced his return), the Widow Amaury had already signalled that Clerc was a dead man walking and she had no faith in him.
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
There is a world of difference between saying LA directly influenced - called for and got - Clerc's sacking and then turning around and saying that, well, you know, maybe the return of LA was on the minds of Amaury and McQuaid when they had their fateful meeting and maybe that return influenced their thinking and sped them along toward making a deal.
In either case the sacking of Clerc was a direct consequence of Armstrong wanting to return to the Tour, and was done primarily because of his refusal to compromise on the issue of doping...

I still await some links supporting your claim that Ballester (contrary to all he wrote in Le Sale Tour) said that the return of Armstrong to the Tour had nothing at all to do with Clerc being sacked and that such a claim was "utter nonsense, a stupid attempt by those who have to believe that LA, being the root of all evil, is at the centre of everything that happens in cycling".
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Robert21 said:
fmk_RoI said:
There is a world of difference between saying LA directly influenced - called for and got - Clerc's sacking and then turning around and saying that, well, you know, maybe the return of LA was on the minds of Amaury and McQuaid when they had their fateful meeting and maybe that return influenced their thinking and sped them along toward making a deal.
In either case the sacking of Clerc was a direct consequence of Armstrong wanting to return to the Tour, and was done primarily because of his refusal to compromise on the issue of doping...

I still await some links supporting your claim that Ballester (contrary to all he wrote in Le Sale Tour) said that the return of Armstrong to the Tour had nothing at all to do with Clerc being sacked and that such a claim was "utter nonsense, a stupid attempt by those who have to believe that LA, being the root of all evil, is at the centre of everything that happens in cycling".

Good post. I couldn't get to the forum this afternoon, so instead I went outside and stood in front of a brick wall, trying to reason with it. Same feeling. :D
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
Good post. I couldn't get to the forum this afternoon, so instead I went outside and stood in front of a brick wall, trying to reason with it. Same feeling. :D
You have got to admit that 'FMK's' tactics weren't bad though: claim that some authority figure in cycling supports your view point (and who better than Pierre Ballester, someone who most everybody would accept really does know 'what's what' in the world of cycling) and then sit back with a feeling of invincible vindication.

The only really problem with such an tactic is when your acknowledged 'authority figure' has actually argued the very opposite to what you have claimed. :D

OK, so David Walsh has now 'gone native' at Sky, but he worked with Ballester on Le sale tour, and is also on record as saying that Clerc's departure was directly related to Armstrong's influence and his desire to return to the Tour.

Andy Shen: Tell me about the new book.

David Walsh: ...What we’ve done in the book is basically look at the way cycling is now operating, and the influence Lance Armstrong is able to achieve within the operation of the sport. Pierre and I believe Armstrong’s influence is very significant.

AS: Is this in regards to Clerc being pushed out of the ASO?

DW: Yes
, a big change has happened in the ASO where they went from being the organization that was leading, right at the forefront of the anti-doping movement in professional cycling to, in our opinion, an organization that has accepted that doping is an integral part of the sport, and by highlighting the problem, you only damage the commercial viability of the sport
http://nyvelocity.com/articles/interviews/david-walsh/

I would bet big money that when the UCI and ASO were 'negotiating', Armstrong had already let it be known to them that he wanted - as long as certain conditions were met - to return to the Tour. When the groundwork had been done, Clerc marginalised and the Tour's dope testing back in the 'safe hands' of the UCI, he was then in a position to officially announce his comeback, and with that fait accompli Clerc's position was untenable and he was out.
 
Lance originally intended to win the anniversary Giro and maybe - well most likely - start the Tour afterwards. But he stated his focus is to win the Giro when he announced his comeback. Which actually made sense as it was and is somehow missing on his palmares.

Dolce & Gabbana even designed that years maglia rosa with Armstrong in mind, actually. It just got "ruined" when he had his crash.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Re:

staubsauger said:
Lance originally intended to win the anniversary Giro and maybe - well most likely - start the Tour afterwards. But he stated his focus is to win the Giro when he announced his comeback. Which actually made sense as it was and is somehow missing on his palmares.

Dolce & Gabbana even designed that years maglia rosa with Armstrong in mind, actually. It just got "ruined" when he had his crash.

Yeah, that wasn't the only thing designed that year with Armstrong in mind. This might be a good time to reiterate the interesting background to that race.

When Armstrong decided to reimpose his influence on racing, he apparently thought the best way to reinforce his own authority was by dominating the unexplored territory of the Giro d'Italia. Accordingly, he required that RCS Sport head Angelo Zomegnan travel all the way to Austin, Texas so that he, Armstrong, could present his conditions for entering the race. Among the conditions he demanded were a course favorable to himself; and, the exclusion from the race of Italian Tri-color Filippo Simeoni. Zomegan proved only too happy to meet these demands. (In response to being excluded from the Giro, Simeoni turned in his Italian national champion's jersey in protest.)

In my opinion, had Armstrong not broken his collarbone prior to that Giro, he'd likely have won, and, having won, would have had much more momentum going into the Tour. It's entirely conceivable that he'd have won both in 2009, in which case things might have gone very differently for him subsequently. But in any case the way Zomegan groveled before him - and the whole situation - illustrates just how much power and influence Armstrong had, if any illustration is necessary.

In returning to racing, Armstrong had the intention of halting the sport's progress towards honest racing, and thereby remake pro cycling in his own image. It must be said that he largely succeeded in this, but in the process the sport remade him: from its number one champion to its number one failure.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Re:

Gung Ho Gun said:
I don't think he could have beaten Menchov and Di Luca on the road with those two doping for the stars though. Not with anything he showed after his return.

Perhaps not, but we'll never know. During his seven year reign Armstrong seemed to live a charmed life, winning everything he really wanted to win and almost never being injured. Breaking his collarbone in 2009 was a huge departure from his previous pattern, one he should have taken as an indicator that he was on the wrong course; a tap on the shoulder from God, so to speak, that said, "Hey, pal, this is a very bad idea. Get thee back to Austin straightaway." But since Armstrong thought he was God, he must have surely thought reality was something he could defy.

What's really interesting, though, is the possibility that he was at war somehow with himself, with his own subconscious, which for some reason was finally asserting itself in opposition to his conscious desires. In which case it was Armstrong who defied Armstrong, Armstrong who defeated himself.
 
Armstrong + dope was distinctly more talented than any other contender + dope. And you couldn't win without dope. Armstrong was perfect for the UCI.

Armstrong drew fans more than anybody else. He was an asset. His power came from his talent. Armstrong made money for McDruggen. That was why they used him.

Armstrong is much more dumbass than mastermind. As long as he was winning, he didn't need to be smart. Smarter people (Weasel, Verbruggen, Stapleton) looked out for him.

Now Lance is hemorrhaging money to lawyers. Heis paying big money for smart help.

If Lance is perceived as smart, it's only because the peloton is so stupid. He is no mastermind.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Re:

MarkvW said:
Armstrong + dope was distinctly more talented than any other contender + dope. And you couldn't win without dope. Armstrong was perfect for the UCI.

Armstrong drew fans more than anybody else. He was an asset. His power came from his talent. Armstrong made money for McDruggen. That was why they used him.

Armstrong is much more dumbass than mastermind. As long as he was winning, he didn't need to be smart. Smarter people (Weasel, Verbruggen, Stapleton) looked out for him.

Now Lance is hemorrhaging money to lawyers. Heis paying big money for smart help.

If Lance is perceived as smart, it's only because the peloton is so stupid. He is no mastermind.

Right on.
 
To be honest Menchov and Di Luca probably were / are less naturally talented climbers / gt riders than Lance has been. I'm pretty sure that in his 2009 Tour he might've found a way to beat them.

Also in Italy he could've been way more fearless to increase his technical advantage on top of his talent favor on those two.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
nice little jibe from Kimmage to ST for applying double standards
I never made it to Vegas, and the interview - one of the more interesting I've conducted - was never published, perhaps because my employers at the time - the 'Champions of Journalism' who took on Lance Armstrong - applied different standards to tennis. Or perhaps, as they insisted, it just wasn't very good.
rightly so.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/tennis/paul-kimmage-professional-tennis-could-teach-the-mafia-about-omerta-34535092.html
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
Robert21 said:
fmk_RoI said:
There is a world of difference between saying LA directly influenced - called for and got - Clerc's sacking and then turning around and saying that, well, you know, maybe the return of LA was on the minds of Amaury and McQuaid when they had their fateful meeting and maybe that return influenced their thinking and sped them along toward making a deal.
In either case the sacking of Clerc was a direct consequence of Armstrong wanting to return to the Tour, and was done primarily because of his refusal to compromise on the issue of doping...

I still await some links supporting your claim that Ballester (contrary to all he wrote in Le Sale Tour) said that the return of Armstrong to the Tour had nothing at all to do with Clerc being sacked and that such a claim was "utter nonsense, a stupid attempt by those who have to believe that LA, being the root of all evil, is at the centre of everything that happens in cycling".

Good post. I couldn't get to the forum this afternoon, so instead I went outside and stood in front of a brick wall, trying to reason with it. Same feeling. :D

Armstrong, Verbruggen, and US money men, assumed with backing of Wiesel, with CSE, they had negotiations with madame amaury about buying the Tour around then too... think Reed Albergotti of WSJ had mail on this
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Maxiton said:
Robert21 said:
fmk_RoI said:
There is a world of difference between saying LA directly influenced - called for and got - Clerc's sacking and then turning around and saying that, well, you know, maybe the return of LA was on the minds of Amaury and McQuaid when they had their fateful meeting and maybe that return influenced their thinking and sped them along toward making a deal.
In either case the sacking of Clerc was a direct consequence of Armstrong wanting to return to the Tour, and was done primarily because of his refusal to compromise on the issue of doping...

I still await some links supporting your claim that Ballester (contrary to all he wrote in Le Sale Tour) said that the return of Armstrong to the Tour had nothing at all to do with Clerc being sacked and that such a claim was "utter nonsense, a stupid attempt by those who have to believe that LA, being the root of all evil, is at the centre of everything that happens in cycling".

Good post. I couldn't get to the forum this afternoon, so instead I went outside and stood in front of a brick wall, trying to reason with it. Same feeling. :D

Armstrong, Verbruggen, and US money men, assumed with backing of Wiesel, with CSE, they had negotiations with madame amaury about buying the Tour around then too... think Reed Albergotti of WSJ had mail on this

Thanks for the tip, blackcat. A bit of followup googling turned up an Albergotti article for WSJ,

Lance's Plan for France -- Off the Bike
Seeking to Overhaul Cycling, Armstrong Played a Part in Talks to Buy the Tour


Turns out he's also co-author of a book about Armstrong, Wheelmen.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

On one side, Armstrong has hired brand consultant Erich Joachimsthaler, who produced a 198-page report on the subject late last year at the hourly rate of $700.

“There has been no damage to the USPS brand as a result of the revelation … that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing substances while riding on the USPS team,” Joachimsthaler’s report stated.

To rebut this report, the government hired its own expert: New York University marketing professor Joel Steckel, who produced a 95-page report at the discounted hourly rate of $900.

Discounted rate?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2016/04/05/lance-armstrong-federal-government-bicker-over-high-priced-experts/82652502/
 
Re:

86TDFWinner said:
It always amazes me that the media still gives this guy an opportunity to speak. Here you go Wonderboy fans, here's your messiah:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/sport/lance-armstrong-david-walsh-stephen-frears-the-program-cycling/index.html
The other day, I read an article about previously franchised Blockbuster stores that pay to still use the Blockbuster name, even though Blockbuster itself is long gone. These stores are fittingly called "zombies." I couldn't help but think of Lance Armstrong. He is a zombie too -- pathetically stumbling around, living in the fragments of his past.
 
Jan 20, 2010
713
0
0
Visit site
Feb 16, 2011
1,456
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
Gung Ho Gun said:
I don't think he could have beaten Menchov and Di Luca on the road with those two doping for the stars though. Not with anything he showed after his return.

Perhaps not, but we'll never know. During his seven year reign Armstrong seemed to live a charmed life, winning everything he really wanted to win and almost never being injured. Breaking his collarbone in 2009 was a huge departure from his previous pattern, one he should have taken as an indicator that he was on the wrong course; a tap on the shoulder from God, so to speak, that said, "Hey, pal, this is a very bad idea. Get thee back to Austin straightaway." But since Armstrong thought he was God, he must have surely thought reality was something he could defy.

What's really interesting, though, is the possibility that he was at war somehow with himself, with his own subconscious, which for some reason was finally asserting itself in opposition to his conscious desires. In which case it was Armstrong who defied Armstrong, Armstrong who defeated himself.

This and your previous post is pretty spot-on for mine. If he had a winning 2009, then he may have been more inclined to indulge Floyd in some capacity, at least to mollify his more indignant impulses. Thus, USADA as we know it may never have happened. Wouldn't those 'Lanceritas' taste sweet right now....
 

TRENDING THREADS