• 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 541 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 21, 2015
341
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

DirtyWorks said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
In case you haven't figured it out, a large part of what Betsy blamed Lance for was a delusion.

Do we need to debunk this false claim for the 10th time in this thread? Again?

Edit: John's right. Lance would never go after his perceived enemies.

Uh-huh. Lance hacked into Facebook so he could unfriend a few of Betsy's friends at random. That sounds legit. Lance was also the shadowy force behind the SB Nation report that, among many other examples of malfeasance, showed USADA gave Floyd Mayweather Jr. a post dated TUE for an unnecessary infusion then failed to notify Pacquiao's camp about it. Those could not possibly be the delusions of an unhinged mind. You sure debunked that craziness.

Maybe you could debunk laughter about blaming Lance for Frankie's failure to secure a job on Slipstream, a team run by an enemy of Armstrong's. That delusion could not come from it being easier to blame Lance than take responsibility for talking your husband into stabbing an old friend in the back and then having the bad luck to have that friend end up owning a team that should have been a safe harbor. Of course other people in the small, insular world of cycling did not see how Frankie treats his friends and decide they want nothing to do with him. You can be the first to tell us that there is no delusion about that. It really was all Lance's fault.

Keep believing. Betsy needs her sycophants. She spent a lot of effort building a mythology that is just as phony as Lance's. At least Lance now admits what he did. Betsy adds to her sham martyr act weekly. Personally I like the one about Frankie only doping to help Lance. See, even Frankie's extensive dope use was Lance's fault.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

DamianoMachiavelli said:
DirtyWorks said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
In case you haven't figured it out, a large part of what Betsy blamed Lance for was a delusion.

Do we need to debunk this false claim for the 10th time in this thread? Again?

Edit: John's right. Lance would never go after his perceived enemies.

Uh-huh. Lance hacked into Facebook so he could unfriend a few of Betsy's friends at random. That sounds legit. Lance was also the shadowy force behind the SB Nation report that, among many other examples of malfeasance, showed USADA gave Floyd Mayweather Jr. a post dated TUE for an unnecessary infusion then failed to notify Pacquiao's camp about it. Those could not possibly be the delusions of an unhinged mind. You sure debunked that craziness.

Maybe you could debunk laughter about blaming Lance for Frankie's failure to secure a job on Slipstream, a team run by an enemy of Armstrong's. That delusion could not come from it being easier to blame Lance than take responsibility for talking your husband into stabbing an old friend in the back and then having the bad luck to have that friend end up owning a team that should have been a safe harbor. Of course other people in the small, insular world of cycling did not see how Frankie treats his friends and decide they want nothing to do with him. You can be the first to tell us that there is no delusion about that. It really was all Lance's fault.

Keep believing. Betsy needs her sycophants. She spent a lot of effort building a mythology that is just as phony as Lance's. At least Lance now admits what he did. Betsy adds to her sham martyr act weekly. Personally I like the one about Frankie only doping to help Lance. See, even Frankie's extensive dope use was Lance's fault.

Since he was a domestique for Lance, surely by definition he was only doping to help Lance? That's kind of how cycling works....
(not that he wasn't doping at Cofidis).
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
i'm not following the ins and outs here.
But i find it increasingly difficult to understand the rationale behind Lance's lifetime ban.
I could have understood 4, or maybe even 6 years, considering some of the details that came out, and considering the need to set an example.
But lifetime? Good luck justifying that.

Also, as things stand, it is increasingly clear to me that Lance is being blacksheeped by different people and institutions uncapable/unwilling to take responsibilty for their own failings and misdeeds. I see it with Walsh, Lemond, USADA, UCI, Garmin/JV. It's clear that they've been trying hard to paint Lance as some kind of dark evil power. In doing so, they've not hesitated to fabricate stuff. Example: the 300k rumor. Lemond just threw it out there and it was eagerly adopted as fact by Lemond fans in particular and cycling fans in general.
I don't doubt for one second that someone like Betsy has been making stuff up, too. Her whole appearance screams it. Horny to be in the spotlight.
Sure, Lance has done some nasty stuff, but the way these people are exploiting his persona either to put themselves in the limelight or to deflect away from their own flawed characters (or both) is painful to watch.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Cannibal72 said:
Since he was a domestique for Lance, surely by definition he was only doping to help Lance? That's kind of how cycling works....
(not that he wasn't doping at Cofidis).
but then Lance has been doping to help USA Cycling, to help the UCI and to fill he wallets of a whole bunch of people who rode along on his back.
 
Jun 2, 2015
101
0
0
Visit site
Re:

sniper said:
i'm not following the ins and outs here.
But i find it increasingly difficult to understand the rationale behind Lance's lifetime ban.
I could have understood 4, or maybe even 6 years, considering some of the details that came out, and considering the need to set an example.
But lifetime? Good luck justifying that.

Also, as things stand, it is increasingly clear to me that Lance is being blacksheeped by different people and institutions uncapable/unwilling to take responsibilty for their own failings and misdeeds. I see it with Walsh, Lemond, USADA, UCI, Garmin/JV. It's clear that they've been trying hard to paint Lance as some kind of dark evil power. In doing so, they've not hesitated to fabricate stuff. Example: the 300k rumor. Lemond just threw it out there and it was eagerly adopted as fact by Lemond fans in particular and cycling fans in general.
I don't doubt for one second that someone like Betsy has been making stuff up, too. Her whole appearance screams it. Horny to be in the spotlight.
Sure, Lance has done some nasty stuff, but the way these people are exploiting his persona either to put themselves in the limelight or to deflect away from their own flawed characters (or both) is painful to watch.

If life ban for doping offences was the starting point for Lance it should also have been the starting point for the others that were caught in same the USADA investigation. Then with exceptional assistance the penalty could have been reduced to 25% ie 4 y. Looking at some past sanctions (eg JJ, Valverde, Basso) from that era 2y would have been appropriate. "Fairness" then may have been start at 8 Y for all and aim to get 2 y for those who cooperate.

How the SOL was dealt with in all the USADA cases also was not equal.

How anyone can say JV etal were not guilty of the same level of complicity and concealment as Lance in that era is beyond me.

JV continued to lie and conceal the facts about his "clean" GT winner until Ras' book came out. USADA seemed to have no issue with that.

USADA had every right to be furious with Lance and the way he chose to handle things caused them a lot of stress and cost a lot of $'s. But IMO they also let emotions get in the way with the way they treated all those who broke the same antidoping rules quite differently.

Nobody ever seems to ask why USADA never launched any investigation into Lance when many in Europe had been screaming about him and his team for many many years, especially after the 1999 positives were exposed?
 
Re: Re:

Anaconda said:
sniper said:
i'm not following the ins and outs here.
But i find it increasingly difficult to understand the rationale behind Lance's lifetime ban.
I could have understood 4, or maybe even 6 years, considering some of the details that came out, and considering the need to set an example.
But lifetime? Good luck justifying that.

Also, as things stand, it is increasingly clear to me that Lance is being blacksheeped by different people and institutions uncapable/unwilling to take responsibilty for their own failings and misdeeds. I see it with Walsh, Lemond, USADA, UCI, Garmin/JV. It's clear that they've been trying hard to paint Lance as some kind of dark evil power. In doing so, they've not hesitated to fabricate stuff. Example: the 300k rumor. Lemond just threw it out there and it was eagerly adopted as fact by Lemond fans in particular and cycling fans in general.
I don't doubt for one second that someone like Betsy has been making stuff up, too. Her whole appearance screams it. Horny to be in the spotlight.
Sure, Lance has done some nasty stuff, but the way these people are exploiting his persona either to put themselves in the limelight or to deflect away from their own flawed characters (or both) is painful to watch.

If life ban for doping offences was the starting point for Lance it should also have been the starting point for the others that were caught in same the USADA investigation. Then with exceptional assistance the penalty could have been reduced to 25% ie 4 y. Looking at some past sanctions (eg JJ, Valverde, Basso) from that era 2y would have been appropriate. "Fairness" then may have been start at 8 Y for all and aim to get 2 y for those who cooperate.

How the SOL was dealt with in all the USADA cases also was not equal.

How anyone can say JV etal were not guilty of the same level of complicity and concealment as Lance in that era is beyond me.

JV continued to lie and conceal the facts about his "clean" GT winner until Ras' book came out. USADA seemed to have no issue with that.

USADA had every right to be furious with Lance and the way he chose to handle things caused them a lot of stress and cost a lot of $'s. But IMO they also let emotions get in the way with the way they treated all those who broke the same antidoping rules quite differently.

Nobody ever seems to ask why USADA never launched any investigation into Lance when many in Europe had been screaming about him and his team for many many years, especially after the 1999 positives were exposed?[/
quote]

You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise? Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use. Add that to the list of cheating, character assassination and you have a rare historical figure meriting some serious political clout to bring to justice. Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?
 
Oct 21, 2015
341
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Oldermanish said:
You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise? Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use. Add that to the list of cheating, character assassination and you have a rare historical figure meriting some serious political clout to bring to justice. Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?

Looks like you are the one doing the revision here. Obviously you have been listening too much to Betsy and her apologists who cry crocodile tears over Lance smearing Betsy even as they stoop to smearing Lance's cancer foundation. How much lower can they go? You appear to be a good one to answer that question.

So what if Lance fought USADA outside of USADA rules? There was a good reason for that. USADA runs a kangaroo court. It is deliberately designed to be unfair to the athletes. Tygart is not even satisfied with that. He makes up rules as he goes along and interprets existing ones on a case by case basis with no regard to precedence to provide an even greater advantage. It does not hurt that the arbitrator USADA chooses for its cases has never voted against USADA.

Floyd was not happy about cooperating with USADA because they dicked him over in his case. Their witnesses lied on the stand. Tygart made up a rule make Floyd's ban six months longer than what was in the rules. But Floyd wanted the system changed, so he had Tygart promise to go after USAC and the UCI. Floyd also did not want it all to be just about Lance, so he made Tygart promise to treat Lance the same as the others. Tygart reneged on both promises.

From witnesses, Tygart had information about the doping practices at half a dozen teams. Instead of exposing the extent at doping throughout cycling, he fabricated a story about a unique Postal conspiracy and riders being forced to dope. When affidavits were being passed back and forth to hammer them into final form, Tygart took out information that implicated USAC. The end result is Kimmage got screwed over so Tygart could make himself famous.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Oldermanish said:
...

You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time
or just address perceived double standards.
you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
for many cyclists of his era there has not been any kind of inquiry in the first place.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise?
Is there some USADA or UCI rule against teaming up with presidents? He was a celebrity and he lived life accordingly. Sure, several aspects of it were (highly) dubious. But I'm not sure if/how that sh/could impact the length of his ban.

Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use.
If there was fraud going on under Livestrong, this must be investigated, but I don't know if it should have any bearing on his ban from sports. And again, some consistency would then be nice. If we investigate Livestrong, let's investigate all those other charities set up by famous people. There's a reason I don't donate to charity in the first place.

character assassination
JV and Sutherland were assasinating Jorg Jaksche not long ago. Talansky assassinated Di Luca. And don't get me started about David Millar and what he did to Gaumont. It had no consequences for (the length of) their bans though.
On the topic of Millar, he also pushed teammates to dope. Again, this had no consequences for his ban.

Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.
Lemond and Hampsten still enjoy plenty of protection. More to the point: they *only* enjoy protection; there's is no scrutiny of their performances whatsoever. Lance was protected from high up, no doubt, but he was also scrutinized in unprecedented fashion.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?
Revisionism here comes from the Garmin affidavits and Tygart who has vouched for the truthfulness of those affidavits. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. Nobody stopped doping in 2006. So that's lying under oath.
And then the recent episode with Danielson, or JV attacking Jorg Jaksche. I'm cherry picking.
Not pretty when taken together, and it puts Lance's lifetime ban in an increasingly awkward perspective. That's little to do with revisionism but more with addressing perceived double standards.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

DamianoMachiavelli said:
ScienceIsCool said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
In other news...Betsy is accusing LA of hacking into her Facebook account to unfriend people. Yup. After a hard day at golf, Lance comes home, dons Rollerblades and sunglasses, and hacks the Gibson so he can randomly unfriend Betsy's sycophants. Of course this is the same paranoid who convinced herself that SB Nation's devastating article about USADA's sham testing program for boxing was part of an Armstrong conspiracy to discredit USADA. Crazy as a 5h1th0us3 rat.

You're right. Lance would *never* go after Betsy. Now tell us more about Floyd.

In case you haven't figured it out, a large part of what Betsy blamed Lance for was a delusion. She saw the bogeyman in every shadow. It has metastasized to the point where she sees Armstrong behind glitches in Facebook's software. A lot of it is also posturing so she can play the part of the truth seeking martyr. It is like LeMond pretending Lance killed his livelihood while neglecting to mention he sold his bike brand years earlier and his chief benefit from it was taking advantage of clause in the sales contract that allowed him to buy discounted bikes and sell them at a cut rate to friends, thus robbing the brand of full price sales. He also neglects to mention that during this time he settled with the Yellowstone Club for $39 million. $19 million was paid out before the club declared bankruptcy. While the average person might consider twenty million simoleons enough money to comfortably retire on and live happily ever after, perhaps it goes quickly for someone with drug and alcohol problems.

As for Floyd, he is chillaxing at ten thousand feet.

Lol! What drug problems are you referring to, do you have any credible proof to back this up, or are you just talking?
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

popular jams said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
ScienceIsCool said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
In other news...Betsy is accusing LA of hacking into her Facebook account to unfriend people. Yup. After a hard day at golf, Lance comes home, dons Rollerblades and sunglasses, and hacks the Gibson so he can randomly unfriend Betsy's sycophants. Of course this is the same paranoid who convinced herself that SB Nation's devastating article about USADA's sham testing program for boxing was part of an Armstrong conspiracy to discredit USADA. Crazy as a 5h1th0us3 rat.

You're right. Lance would *never* go after Betsy. Now tell us more about Floyd.

In case you haven't figured it out, a large part of what Betsy blamed Lance for was a delusion. She saw the bogeyman in every shadow. It has metastasized to the point where she sees Armstrong behind glitches in Facebook's software. A lot of it is also posturing so she can play the part of the truth seeking martyr. It is like LeMond pretending Lance killed his livelihood while neglecting to mention he sold his bike brand years earlier and his chief benefit from it was taking advantage of clause in the sales contract that allowed him to buy discounted bikes and sell them at a cut rate to friends, thus robbing the brand of full price sales. He also neglects to mention that during this time he settled with the Yellowstone Club for $39 million. $19 million was paid out before the club declared bankruptcy. While the average person might consider twenty million simoleons enough money to comfortably retire on and live happily ever after, perhaps it goes quickly for someone with drug and alcohol problems.

As for Floyd, he is chillaxing at ten thousand feet.

I never knew that LeMond had a drug an alcohol problem that would cause him to burn through nearly $20 million irrationally. And he sure put up a hell of a legal fight to sell a handful of discounted product to friends. That's especially weird since LeMond was a licensed brand and not a manufacturer.

At least LeMond had some actual anguish from his childhood to overcome, which likely led to any mental health and self-medication issues. Armstrong's mother had to fabricate large portions of his own childhood in order to sell his hard luck story to the world.

LeMond is a flawed hero. Armstrong's a sociopath. I know which one I'd rather shake hands with.

Your post is like a strawman wrapped in a red herring.

He doesn't....but this person will pinky swear that he did, w/o providing any factual, credible, verifiable proof to back up his/her ridiculous claim.
 
Re:

sniper said:
i'm not following the ins and outs here.
But i find it increasingly difficult to understand the rationale behind Lance's lifetime ban.
I could have understood 4, or maybe even 6 years, considering some of the details that came out, and considering the need to set an example.
But lifetime? Good luck justifying that.

Also, as things stand, it is increasingly clear to me that Lance is being blacksheeped by different people and institutions uncapable/unwilling to take responsibilty for their own failings and misdeeds. I see it with Walsh, Lemond, USADA, UCI, Garmin/JV. It's clear that they've been trying hard to paint Lance as some kind of dark evil power. In doing so, they've not hesitated to fabricate stuff. Example: the 300k rumor. Lemond just threw it out there and it was eagerly adopted as fact by Lemond fans in particular and cycling fans in general.
I don't doubt for one second that someone like Betsy has been making stuff up, too. Her whole appearance screams it. Horny to be in the spotlight.
Sure, Lance has done some nasty stuff, but the way these people are exploiting his persona either to put themselves in the limelight or to deflect away from their own flawed characters (or both) is painful to watch.

Its been posted quite a few times for you and others to read about the so called "$300k rumor" you keep trying to discredit

You've been asked NUMEROUS times in various threads to provide credible, verifiable info to back up your ridiculous claims, and yet you refuse to, or sorry" don't have the time".

Show us how anything you're saying here has been made up by: LeMond or Betsy please?

Stop trying to dodge the questions....
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

86TDFWinner said:
sniper said:
i'm not following the ins and outs here.
But i find it increasingly difficult to understand the rationale behind Lance's lifetime ban.
I could have understood 4, or maybe even 6 years, considering some of the details that came out, and considering the need to set an example.
But lifetime? Good luck justifying that.

Also, as things stand, it is increasingly clear to me that Lance is being blacksheeped by different people and institutions uncapable/unwilling to take responsibilty for their own failings and misdeeds. I see it with Walsh, Lemond, USADA, UCI, Garmin/JV. It's clear that they've been trying hard to paint Lance as some kind of dark evil power. In doing so, they've not hesitated to fabricate stuff. Example: the 300k rumor. Lemond just threw it out there and it was eagerly adopted as fact by Lemond fans in particular and cycling fans in general.
I don't doubt for one second that someone like Betsy has been making stuff up, too. Her whole appearance screams it. Horny to be in the spotlight.
Sure, Lance has done some nasty stuff, but the way these people are exploiting his persona either to put themselves in the limelight or to deflect away from their own flawed characters (or both) is painful to watch.

Its been posted quite a few times for you and others to read about the so called "$300k rumor" you keep trying to discredit

You've been asked NUMEROUS times in various threads to provide credible, verifiable info to back up your ridiculous claims, and yet you refuse to, or sorry" don't have the time".

Show us how anything you're saying here has been made up by: LeMond or Betsy please?

Stop trying to dodge the questions....
Lemond fabricating stuff for his own benefit is well documented (the appendix story).
Admittedly, that doesn't mean he fabricated the 300k rumor. So for the record, you're right that I should have been more precise in the post you replied to. It's not a fact that Lemond made that story up.

But there's preciously little evidence that he's telling the truth either.
Yet it's eagerly been put forward as fact by plenty of Lemond fans and cycling fans.
That was the only point I wanted to make: It shows how easy it is to create new narratives wrt Lance. He's so stigmatized that people will swallow whatever story you put out there that puts him in a negative light.

Betsy making stuff up? As I said, I haven't been following the ins and outs.
But the things Damiano is pointing out strike me as perfectly plausible. She's constantly searching the spotlights. The idea that she's been making stuff up about Lance to get more prime time wouldn't surprise me in the least. And the message that Frankie wouldn't have doped if it wasn't for Lance (which is implicit in most of Betsy's interviews) is plainly ridiculous. Playing the victim card 101.

There is a documentary about the 1984 Games blood doping scandal coming out soon, an event that Lance really had nothing, nada, zilch to do with. I saw the trailer, and it features Betsy. Guess whom she's talking about? Indeed, Lance...
She just can't help herself. I appreciate the whistle-blowing she did when Lance was still hot property, but he's been taken down already, and she's still milking the story like it's 1999. She's taking it a tad bit too far now for my taste.

See the trailer at bottom of this page:
http://lapostexaminer.com/tainted-blood-explores-los-angeles-olympics-doping-scandal/2016/04/04

The irony is that Betsy and Frankie are turning into excellent examples of how much doping pays, even if you get exposed. She and Frankie would have been complete nobodies if he hadn't doped.
Playing the victim card has worked out nicely for them.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Oldermanish said:
...

You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time
or just address perceived double standards.
you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
for many cyclists of his era there has not been any kind of inquiry in the first place.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise?
Is there some USADA or UCI rule against teaming up with presidents? He was a celebrity and he lived life accordingly. Sure, several aspects of it were (highly) dubious. But I'm not sure if/how that sh/could impact the length of his ban.

Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use.
If there was fraud going on under Livestrong, this must be investigated, but I don't know if it should have any bearing on his ban from sports. And again, some consistency would then be nice. If we investigate Livestrong, let's investigate all those other charities set up by famous people. There's a reason I don't donate to charity in the first place.

character assassination
JV and Sutherland were assasinating Jorg Jaksche not long ago. Talansky assassinated Di Luca. And don't get me started about David Millar and what he did to Gaumont. It had no consequences for (the length of) their bans though.
On the topic of Millar, he also pushed teammates to dope. Again, this had no consequences for his ban.

Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.
Lemond and Hampsten still enjoy plenty of protection. More to the point: they *only* enjoy protection; there's is no scrutiny of their performances whatsoever. Lance was protected from high up, no doubt, but he was also scrutinized in unprecedented fashion.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?
Revisionism here comes from the Garmin affidavits and Tygart who has vouched for the truthfulness of those affidavits. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. Nobody stopped doping in 2006. So that's lying under oath.
And then the recent episode with Danielson, or JV attacking Jorg Jaksche. I'm cherry picking.
Not pretty when taken together, and it puts Lance's lifetime ban in an increasingly awkward perspective. That's little to do with revisionism but more with addressing perceived double standards.

i am liking sniper more and more and more and more. but i still prefer ricky riccio
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
I don't get how Lance could have "hacked" bookface. Not saying it can't happen but I don't give Lance that much credit when it comes to hacking skills!

People are fast to jump all over DamianoMacavelli (sorry if I miss spelled the name). The thing is this person seems to have some info from somewhere or someone and it is interesting.

With respect to the life time bannination of LA - compared to what other folks get and got - not even close to what should have happened. Tremendous over reach of USADA and TT. He gives breaks to other athletes in other sports but wanted to make a name for himself against LA. Very obvious.

As far as the 300 large claim and who started it. I don't know where the story originated but there is no proof on either direction for that.

Drugs and Alcohol claims well - I will just say that I can recall more than one drunk call playah made back in the day and one he even records.
 
Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't get how Lance could have "hacked" bookface. Not saying it can't happen but I don't give Lance that much credit when it comes to hacking skills!

People are fast to jump all over DamianoMacavelli (sorry if I miss spelled the name). The thing is this person seems to have some info from somewhere or someone and it is interesting.

With respect to the life time bannination of LA - compared to what other folks get and got - not even close to what should have happened. Tremendous over reach of USADA and TT. He gives breaks to other athletes in other sports but wanted to make a name for himself against LA. Very obvious.

As far as the 300 large claim and who started it. I don't know where the story originated but there is no proof on either direction for that.

Drugs and Alcohol claims well - I will just say that I can recall more than one drunk call playah made back in the day and one he even records.
I would agree on this, except for the fact that Lancey-poo went to great lengths to try to totally destroy USADA/Tygart. Solliciting politicians using Livestrong, private investigators to find dirt on Tygart, etc etc. In the end he deserves what he got.

If he had shown even a minimum of humility, he probably wouldn't have gotten life. What goes around comes around.
 
Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't get how Lance could have "hacked" bookface. Not saying it can't happen but I don't give Lance that much credit when it comes to hacking skills!

People are fast to jump all over DamianoMacavelli (sorry if I miss spelled the name). The thing is this person seems to have some info from somewhere or someone and it is interesting.

With respect to the life time bannination of LA - compared to what other folks get and got - not even close to what should have happened. Tremendous over reach of USADA and TT. He gives breaks to other athletes in other sports but wanted to make a name for himself against LA. Very obvious.

As far as the 300 large claim and who started it. I don't know where the story originated but there is no proof on either direction for that.

Drugs and Alcohol claims well - I will just say that I can recall more than one drunk call playah made back in the day and one he even records.

The story goes back some years. Apparently Armstrong was using a keystroke logging program on former wife so he could read her email. The story goes that Besty was emailing Kik and lance hacked her email. Not sure I believe it. It might have come out in the SCA depos.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't get how Lance could have "hacked" bookface. Not saying it can't happen but I don't give Lance that much credit when it comes to hacking skills!

People are fast to jump all over DamianoMacavelli (sorry if I miss spelled the name). The thing is this person seems to have some info from somewhere or someone and it is interesting.

With respect to the life time bannination of LA - compared to what other folks get and got - not even close to what should have happened. Tremendous over reach of USADA and TT. He gives breaks to other athletes in other sports but wanted to make a name for himself against LA. Very obvious.

As far as the 300 large claim and who started it. I don't know where the story originated but there is no proof on either direction for that.

Drugs and Alcohol claims well - I will just say that I can recall more than one drunk call playah made back in the day and one he even records.

The story goes back some years. Apparently Armstrong was using a keystroke logging program on former wife so he could read her email. The story goes that Besty was emailing Kik and lance hacked her email. Not sure I believe it. It might have come out in the SCA depos.
Yes I have heard that but - That is not hacking. Having keystroke records is stealing a password.

I order for him to Hack into BA's bookface he would have to have a keystroke recording going on at her home. So he broke into their home?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't get how Lance could have "hacked" bookface. Not saying it can't happen but I don't give Lance that much credit when it comes to hacking skills!

People are fast to jump all over DamianoMacavelli (sorry if I miss spelled the name). The thing is this person seems to have some info from somewhere or someone and it is interesting.

With respect to the life time bannination of LA - compared to what other folks get and got - not even close to what should have happened. Tremendous over reach of USADA and TT. He gives breaks to other athletes in other sports but wanted to make a name for himself against LA. Very obvious.

As far as the 300 large claim and who started it. I don't know where the story originated but there is no proof on either direction for that.

Drugs and Alcohol claims well - I will just say that I can recall more than one drunk call playah made back in the day and one he even records.
I would agree on this, except for the fact that Lancey-poo went to great lengths to try to totally destroy USADA/Tygart. Solliciting politicians using Livestrong, private investigators to find dirt on Tygart, etc etc. In the end he deserves what he got.

If he had shown even a minimum of humility, he probably wouldn't have gotten life. What goes around comes around.
Yeah well we will never know what could have happened because we do know he got life.

You are the majority I would guess who say he deserves a bannination for life. I don't agree but hey I have never lived my life worried about what a bully would do or try to do to me.
 
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
thehog said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't get how Lance could have "hacked" bookface. Not saying it can't happen but I don't give Lance that much credit when it comes to hacking skills!

People are fast to jump all over DamianoMacavelli (sorry if I miss spelled the name). The thing is this person seems to have some info from somewhere or someone and it is interesting.

With respect to the life time bannination of LA - compared to what other folks get and got - not even close to what should have happened. Tremendous over reach of USADA and TT. He gives breaks to other athletes in other sports but wanted to make a name for himself against LA. Very obvious.

As far as the 300 large claim and who started it. I don't know where the story originated but there is no proof on either direction for that.

Drugs and Alcohol claims well - I will just say that I can recall more than one drunk call playah made back in the day and one he even records.

The story goes back some years. Apparently Armstrong was using a keystroke logging program on former wife so he could read her email. The story goes that Besty was emailing Kik and lance hacked her email. Not sure I believe it. It might have come out in the SCA depos.
Yes I have heard that but - That is not hacking. Having keystroke records is stealing a password.

I order for him to Hack into BA's bookface he would have to have a keystroke recording going on at her home. So he broke into their home?

Oh, I agree, it didn't happen, it's just paranoia and a lack of things to talk about. To be honest Armstrong has more than enough on his plate than to look at BAs vacation snaps and de-friend people, lol! :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Oldermanish said:
...

You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time
or just address perceived double standards.
you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
for many cyclists of his era there has not been any kind of inquiry in the first place.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise?
Is there some USADA or UCI rule against teaming up with presidents? He was a celebrity and he lived life accordingly. Sure, several aspects of it were (highly) dubious. But I'm not sure if/how that sh/could impact the length of his ban.

Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use.
If there was fraud going on under Livestrong, this must be investigated, but I don't know if it should have any bearing on his ban from sports. And again, some consistency would then be nice. If we investigate Livestrong, let's investigate all those other charities set up by famous people. There's a reason I don't donate to charity in the first place.

character assassination
JV and Sutherland were assasinating Jorg Jaksche not long ago. Talansky assassinated Di Luca. And don't get me started about David Millar and what he did to Gaumont. It had no consequences for (the length of) their bans though.
On the topic of Millar, he also pushed teammates to dope. Again, this had no consequences for his ban.

Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.
Lemond and Hampsten still enjoy plenty of protection. More to the point: they *only* enjoy protection; there's is no scrutiny of their performances whatsoever. Lance was protected from high up, no doubt, but he was also scrutinized in unprecedented fashion.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?
Revisionism here comes from the Garmin affidavits and Tygart who has vouched for the truthfulness of those affidavits. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. Nobody stopped doping in 2006. So that's lying under oath.
And then the recent episode with Danielson, or JV attacking Jorg Jaksche. I'm cherry picking.
Not pretty when taken together, and it puts Lance's lifetime ban in an increasingly awkward perspective. That's little to do with revisionism but more with addressing perceived double standards.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA, Snipey. I'm offering reasons why USADA would go for a greater penalty and let others walk. You want me to explain why every two-bit racer that committed an infraction is not under some kind of indictment? Use some sense. I'm not defending anyone else as there's plenty of guilt to go around.
But there is zero sentiment here for revisiting Lance's history as though he has been now "less guiltier" in light of your research. The guy crafted his entire career and a foundation on hubris and bullsh*t. That's usually the preserve of jingoistic/messianic religious and political figures.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Oldermanish said:
sniper said:
Oldermanish said:
...

You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time
or just address perceived double standards.
you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
for many cyclists of his era there has not been any kind of inquiry in the first place.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise?
Is there some USADA or UCI rule against teaming up with presidents? He was a celebrity and he lived life accordingly. Sure, several aspects of it were (highly) dubious. But I'm not sure if/how that sh/could impact the length of his ban.

Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use.
If there was fraud going on under Livestrong, this must be investigated, but I don't know if it should have any bearing on his ban from sports. And again, some consistency would then be nice. If we investigate Livestrong, let's investigate all those other charities set up by famous people. There's a reason I don't donate to charity in the first place.

character assassination
JV and Sutherland were assasinating Jorg Jaksche not long ago. Talansky assassinated Di Luca. And don't get me started about David Millar and what he did to Gaumont. It had no consequences for (the length of) their bans though.
On the topic of Millar, he also pushed teammates to dope. Again, this had no consequences for his ban.

Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.
Lemond and Hampsten still enjoy plenty of protection. More to the point: they *only* enjoy protection; there's is no scrutiny of their performances whatsoever. Lance was protected from high up, no doubt, but he was also scrutinized in unprecedented fashion.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?
Revisionism here comes from the Garmin affidavits and Tygart who has vouched for the truthfulness of those affidavits. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. Nobody stopped doping in 2006. So that's lying under oath.
And then the recent episode with Danielson, or JV attacking Jorg Jaksche. I'm cherry picking.
Not pretty when taken together, and it puts Lance's lifetime ban in an increasingly awkward perspective. That's little to do with revisionism but more with addressing perceived double standards.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA, Snipey. I'm offering reasons why USADA would go for a greater penalty and let others walk. You want me to explain why every two-bit racer that committed an infraction is not under some kind of indictment? Use some sense. I'm not defending anyone else as there's plenty of guilt to go around.
But there is zero sentiment here for revisiting Lance's history as though he has been now "less guiltier" in light of your research. The guy crafted his entire career and a foundation on hubris and *******t. That's usually the preserve of jingoistic/messianic religious and political figures.
THERE is MORE than one who has done this.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Oldermanish said:
sniper said:
Oldermanish said:
...

You must be new the issue. While you may not agree with the length of Lance's ban and wish to soften his troubled time
or just address perceived double standards.
you are also missing the tremendous influence he brought to bear to stifle any inquiry.
for many cyclists of his era there has not been any kind of inquiry in the first place.
How many riders can reach out to former presidents (of several countries), senators, lobbyists and financial heavyweights to preserve a completely false enterprise?
Is there some USADA or UCI rule against teaming up with presidents? He was a celebrity and he lived life accordingly. Sure, several aspects of it were (highly) dubious. But I'm not sure if/how that sh/could impact the length of his ban.

Lance created a lucrative cesspool of a foundation he was exploiting for his own use.
If there was fraud going on under Livestrong, this must be investigated, but I don't know if it should have any bearing on his ban from sports. And again, some consistency would then be nice. If we investigate Livestrong, let's investigate all those other charities set up by famous people. There's a reason I don't donate to charity in the first place.

character assassination
JV and Sutherland were assasinating Jorg Jaksche not long ago. Talansky assassinated Di Luca. And don't get me started about David Millar and what he did to Gaumont. It had no consequences for (the length of) their bans though.
On the topic of Millar, he also pushed teammates to dope. Again, this had no consequences for his ban.

Until Floyd made it unavoidable for USADA and Justice to go after him His synchophants offered decades of protection. That's why.
Lemond and Hampsten still enjoy plenty of protection. More to the point: they *only* enjoy protection; there's is no scrutiny of their performances whatsoever. Lance was protected from high up, no doubt, but he was also scrutinized in unprecedented fashion.

Why the sudden rush to revisionism lately?
Revisionism here comes from the Garmin affidavits and Tygart who has vouched for the truthfulness of those affidavits. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. Nobody stopped doping in 2006. So that's lying under oath.
And then the recent episode with Danielson, or JV attacking Jorg Jaksche. I'm cherry picking.
Not pretty when taken together, and it puts Lance's lifetime ban in an increasingly awkward perspective. That's little to do with revisionism but more with addressing perceived double standards.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA, Snipey. I'm offering reasons why USADA would go for a greater penalty and let others walk. You want me to explain why every two-bit racer that committed an infraction is not under some kind of indictment? Use some sense. I'm not defending anyone else as there's plenty of guilt to go around.
But there is zero sentiment here for revisiting Lance's history as though he has been now "less guiltier" in light of your research. The guy crafted his entire career and a foundation on hubris and *******t. That's usually the preserve of jingoistic/messianic religious and political figures.
THERE is MORE than one who has done this.

I'm pretty sure he's the only rider who was also an owner of the team. So there's that bit of awkwardness when your teammate chooses who goes to the Tour *and* tells you to get on the program. Not to mention the fact he's in a business relationship with head of the sport (Verbruggen) trying to *buy* the Tour. What about that sick feeling you get when you're the reigning Italian road champion, but can't get a ride at the Giro? Livestrong.com vs Livestrong.org but I'm sure that was an innocent bit of confusion.

It goes on, but I'm pretty sure that Lance "you're not worth the chair you're sitting on" Armstrong is unique even in the world of cycling. And after trying to get the USADA defunded by lobbying congress, I'm not sure why you think he didn't get a fair shake. Even after all that, Tygart gave him a chance to talk and reduce his sentence. For *months* after the reasoned decision. No, Lance got everything coming to him.

John Swanson
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Oldermanish said:
...
Whoa, whoa, WHOA, Snipey. I'm offering reasons why USADA would go for a greater penalty and let others walk. ... Use some sense. I'm not defending anyone else as there's plenty of guilt to go around.
that's fair enough
You want me to explain why every two-bit racer that committed an infraction is not under some kind of indictment?
no. I wanna know why Tygart cut a fraudulous deal with basically the whole Garmin crew. He allowed them to lie under oath, vouched for the truthfulness of those affidavits, and handed out 6-month off-season bans. A bit of a give-away, don't you think?
And I wanna know what Lance's lifetime ban is based on. Six years, hell even eight years, fair enough. But lifetime?

But there is zero sentiment here for revisiting Lance's history as though he has been now "less guiltier" in light of your research.
The stuff I 'researched' wrt Lemond/Hampsten et al. has comparatively little bearing on my opinion of Lance's ban. That opinion is mainly based on seeing Sky, Walsh, and Garmin take the piss.
But sure, the Lemond/Hampsten/Bauer narrative of "clean ammies beating pesky doping europeans" is not far away; in fact, it was the perfect forecasting of the clean cycling narrative that Walsh, Sky and Garmin are now selling us.
A nice case in point is Walsh (in From Lance to Landis) selling snakeoil about a squeaky clean Lemond who couldn't hang on when EPO hit the scene...Gimme a break.
Reading that kind of double standards is what makes me feel that, in hindsight, Lance's use of the lable "witch hunt" was in fact warranted.
So yes, the Lemond story, and how it ties into the present, does add to my sense of hypocrisy.

The guy crafted his entire career and a foundation on hubris and *******t. That's usually the preserve of jingoistic/messianic religious and political figures.
Fair enough. Two things you forget though is
(a) from the day of his breakthrough, he had two deep-digging journos going after him;
(b) many, many people got rich off his back. That includes the people he cut deals with like Verbruggen and McQuaid; it also includes people like the Andreus and the Garmin boys.

None of that should apologize for the fraud he committed. But imo it does put things in an important perspective. There is a reason why guys like Hampsten and Bauer were defending Lance until the very last moment. They didn't think he was doing much wrong.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
I'm pretty sure he's the only rider who was also an owner of the team. So there's that bit of awkwardness when your teammate chooses who goes to the Tour *and* tells you to get on the program. Not to mention the fact he's in a business relationship with head of the sport (Verbruggen) trying to *buy* the Tour. What about that sick feeling you get when you're the reigning Italian road champion, but can't get a ride at the Giro? Livestrong.com vs Livestrong.org but I'm sure that was an innocent bit of confusion.

It goes on, but I'm pretty sure that Lance "you're not worth the chair you're sitting on" Armstrong is unique even in the world of cycling. And after trying to get the USADA defunded by lobbying congress, I'm not sure why you think he didn't get a fair shake. Even after all that, Tygart gave him a chance to talk and reduce his sentence. For *months* after the reasoned decision. No, Lance got everything coming to him.

John Swanson

I think David Millar was a part owner of Team Slipstream for a while.

The decision to give Armstrong a lifetime ban was correct, imo. I am not going to rehash Armstrong's history, but anyone who would want to see that guy back involved in any sport has lost a marble or 2.

Letting others off lightly and continuing to do so makes a hypocrisy of the whole system. Seems Tygart is just as 'corruptible' as others and the going after Armstrong appears to have been personal, but then the person to blame for that is Armstrong. The guy is such a jerk, imagine he could now be bribing police forces in Texas to buy his bikes to ride :D
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
ScienceIsCool said:
I'm pretty sure he's the only rider who was also an owner of the team. So there's that bit of awkwardness when your teammate chooses who goes to the Tour *and* tells you to get on the program. Not to mention the fact he's in a business relationship with head of the sport (Verbruggen) trying to *buy* the Tour. What about that sick feeling you get when you're the reigning Italian road champion, but can't get a ride at the Giro? Livestrong.com vs Livestrong.org but I'm sure that was an innocent bit of confusion.

It goes on, but I'm pretty sure that Lance "you're not worth the chair you're sitting on" Armstrong is unique even in the world of cycling. And after trying to get the USADA defunded by lobbying congress, I'm not sure why you think he didn't get a fair shake. Even after all that, Tygart gave him a chance to talk and reduce his sentence. For *months* after the reasoned decision. No, Lance got everything coming to him.

John Swanson

I think David Millar was a part owner of Team Slipstream for a while.

The decision to give Armstrong a lifetime ban was correct, imo. I am not going to rehash Armstrong's history, but anyone who would want to see that guy back involved in any sport has lost a marble or 2.

Letting others off lightly and continuing to do so makes a hypocrisy of the whole system. Seems Tygart is just as 'corruptible' as others and the going after Armstrong appears to have been personal, but then the person to blame for that is Armstrong. The guy is such a jerk, imagine he could now be bribing police forces in Texas to buy his bikes to ride :D

I don't think that Tygart is actually corrupt. I think he was engaged in some Realpolitik. Either he works with JV - who hands over his crew - and gets mountains of info to expose doping in cycling in exchange for short term bans, or he gets nothing. No Armstrong. No reasoned decision. No CIRC. Absolutely nothing. Hell, Pat would still be in charge at the UCI.

Of course, that historic opportunity was absolutely wasted. We're pretty much back to where we were 5 to 7 years ago. There just wasn't enough willpower from the teams, UCI, sponsors to enact any real change.

John Swanson