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

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

... snipped...
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.

The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.

Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.

What was your friend's summary?

IMO, Lance perpetrated a major fraud. He allied himself with like-minded folks (e.g. Wiesel, Bruyneel, Verdruggen), but he was the ringleader. Not them. He corrupted his team and the sport, all the while convincing himself that he was a victim and was doing nothing wrong.

If Lance's misdeeds don't meet justice then we should simply throw out any chance of cycling being legitimate.

But we won't be the first to lament the snail's pace that is the slow arm of justice.



Dave.

Comical. Is that an editorial "we"? Did you hold a bible close while writing the "IMO" paragraph? what if he'd never existed: would the sport still have been pure and noble with just European peasants conducting solitary clandestine doping? Would Floyd not have doped if Lance didn't exist, but the peloton still were?

Oh, I see my love in the tower window, must ford the moat and rescue her.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

... snipped...
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.

The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.

Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.

What was your friend's summary?

IMO, Lance perpetrated a major fraud. He allied himself with like-minded folks (e.g. Wiesel, Bruyneel, Verdruggen), but he was the ringleader. Not them. He corrupted his team and the sport, all the while convincing himself that he was a victim and was doing nothing wrong.

If Lance's misdeeds don't meet justice then we should simply throw out any chance of cycling being legitimate.

But we won't be the first to lament the snail's pace that is the slow arm of justice.



Dave.

Comical. Is that an editorial "we"? Did you hold a bible close while writing the "IMO" paragraph? what if he'd never existed: would the sport still have been pure and noble with just European peasants conducting solitary clandestine doping? Would Floyd not have doped if Lance didn't exist, but the peloton still were?

Oh, I see my love in the tower window, must ford the moat and rescue her.

Thanks for pointing out a great point. I Tried in real talk be he will not even acknowledge my POV. You make it well. Thank you again.

Greg is right to point at the motors. But he fails at being objective when it comes to cycling without Lance Armstrong.

It would have and is a shat show with or without him. The difference is Lance was a d!ck head to others. He was not the ringleader asking others to dope or else Tyler himself would be just taking us for a spin. Remember the team themselves spoke together about doing the dope to compete or not. Meanwhile d!ckhead was undergoing cancer treatment.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

...
Thanks for pointing out a great point. I Tried in real talk be he will not even acknowledge my POV. You make it well. Thank you again.

Greg is right to point at the motors. But he fails at being objective when it comes to cycling without Lance Armstrong.

It would have and is a shat show with or without him. The difference is Lance was a **** head to others. He was not the ringleader asking others to dope or else Tyler himself would be just taking us for a spin. Remember the team themselves spoke together about doing the dope to compete or not. Meanwhile **** was undergoing cancer treatment.

Hi Semper,

If I understand this, you are saying that I didn't acknowledge your POV. Is that right?

I quoted you, responded to you and don't believe that I argued against what you said. I was actually mostly in agreement and merely offered some further context. Thus, I am at a bit of a loss on how I didn't acknowledge what you stated. Can you help me out?

Do I support Tyler's doping or his vanishing twin defense? No.

Do I support Floyd's doping or his beer and bourbon excuse? No.

Was there doping before Lance? Yes.

Is there doping after Lance? Yes.

Would there have been doping without Lance?

Do I think that Tyler, Floyd, and others could or would have doped without Lance. Yes.

Do/did other cyclists talk about doping with each other? Yes. Just ask the Chicken about getting Ryder up to speed, for example.

Does LeMond say dumb stuff from time-to-time? Yes.

Do I wish he wouldn't do that? Yes.

All that said, I would still like to hear your friend's thoughts on Lance, but to summarize why Lance is bad (sorry, 'cuz its already been said thousands of time):

Cycling created WADA.
In an environment where cycling could have gone in a positive direction, Lance showed up and took advantage of the vacuum.

He then took it to a level of organization and explicit fraud that had heretofore not been seen in cycling or any other sport.

There have been wider doping scandals like the E. Germans and more recently the Russians, but the direct pursuit of monetary gain through knowing and explicit fraudulent means - like removing the doping clause from his professional contract when he was explicitly doping - is something that neither the E. Germans or Russians even pursued. Amazing that.

Did I miss anything?

Dave.

 

[aphronesis]

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

(Maybe as Sfi noted someone can hook you up with that dead pony humping gif.)

 

[MarkvW]

Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

"Walk him out?" WTF does that even mean?

The criminal exposure is OVER. Even the most convinced Armstrongophobe accepts this.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

I watch it and concern myself with other things. Got some text of your own Mark?

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.

Good story. Weasel saved the good stuff for the NoCal masters riders and let the underlings figure out the rest of the scam for the pro team.

Evidence? None. You make my point.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

"Walk him out?" WTF does that even mean?

The criminal exposure is OVER. Even the most convinced Armstrongophobe accepts this.

As in the federal trial lets him walk (monetarily). You should come up for air little house plant. Been tapping this vein way too long.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.

The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!

Leave someone else on the hook, Mr. Snide Remark.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping.

Except for the fact Wiesel was always okay with doping, and ran doped teams prior to USPS. ex. Subaru-Montgomery,
It's also worth remembering Wiesel was very involved in the team. If I recall correctly, Hamilton complained the guy was micro-managing the team during one of TdF editions.

I believe the book Wheelmen has the quote about Thom being okay with doping and Lemond disagreeing.

I do agree that so much history is rewritten with a kind of boring A->B->C-> narrative as if it were all a foregone conclusion.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.

Good story. Weasel saved the good stuff for the NoCal masters riders and let the underlings figure out the rest of the scam for the pro team.

Evidence? None. You make my point.

This jury trial will be the best thing that has happened to pro cycling. Lance's only defense is sympathy from the jury. There are many people shaking in their shoes right now. I bet Lance has a bunch of old "friends" coming out of the shadows to "help" him in the coming months. Lance acted like a jerk, but he isn't the one who deserves all of what is coming. Take them all down Lance. I know you read this. See you at the start line in 5 hours.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

(Maybe as Sfi noted someone can hook you up with that dead pony humping gif.)

Pray tell, how do you fix a structural problem?

By subverting prosecution of those that perpetuate it and derive the greatest personal benefit from it?

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.

Good story. Weasel saved the good stuff for the NoCal masters riders and let the underlings figure out the rest of the scam for the pro team.

Evidence? None. You make my point.

This jury trial will be the best thing that has happened to pro cycling. Lance's only defense is sympathy from the jury. There are many people shaking in their shoes right now. I bet Lance has a bunch of old "friends" coming out of the shadows to "help" him in the coming months. Lance acted like a jerk, but he isn't the one who deserves all of what is coming. Take them all down Lance. I know you read this. See you at the start line in 5 hours.

Lance will do it for the Clinic. He will, I'm sure. That's his motivation :sad:

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

"Walk him out?" WTF does that even mean?

The criminal exposure is OVER. Even the most convinced Armstrongophobe accepts this.

As in the federal trial lets him walk (monetarily). You (emphasis added by DQ) should come up for air little house plant. Been tapping this vein way too long.

Isn't this the "Official Lance Armstrong Thread"? With over 14,000 posts in this fourth version?

But you appear to want to make it the MarkVW and D-Queued thread? Didn't know I was so important to warrant displacing the great Armstrong.

I haven't posted here regularly, if at all, in months, or even years and yet you try and make this thread about me?

Have no fear fanboys, Lance may be on the verge of heading back to the trailer park but there appears to be at least one fanboy still working the cause.

Dave.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

"Walk him out?" WTF does that even mean?

The criminal exposure is OVER. Even the most convinced Armstrongophobe accepts this.

As in the federal trial lets him walk (monetarily). You (emphasis added by DQ) should come up for air little house plant. Been tapping this vein way too long.

Isn't this the "Official Lance Armstrong Thread"? With over 14,000 posts in this fourth version?

But you appear to want to make it the MarkVW and D-Queued thread? Didn't know I was so important to warrant displacing the great Armstrong.

I haven't posted here regularly, if at all, in months, or even years and yet you try and make this thread about me?

Have no fear fanboys, Lance may be on the verge of heading back to the trailer park but there appears to be at least one fanboy still working the cause.

Dave.

Sorry bud: I was always Ulllrich. So you can't answer any questions I've posed to you?

LA is LA move on little man.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.

Good story. Weasel saved the good stuff for the NoCal masters riders and let the underlings figure out the rest of the scam for the pro team.

Evidence? None. You make my point.

This jury trial will be the best thing that has happened to pro cycling. Lance's only defense is sympathy from the jury. There are many people shaking in their shoes right now. I bet Lance has a bunch of old "friends" coming out of the shadows to "help" him in the coming months. Lance acted like a jerk, but he isn't the one who deserves all of what is coming. Take them all down Lance. I know you read this. See you at the start line in 5 hours.

Lance will do it for the Clinic. He will, I'm sure. That's his motivation :sad:

He should do it for himself. But of course, you need to make this about you somehow. Sad.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

"Walk him out?" WTF does that even mean?

The criminal exposure is OVER. Even the most convinced Armstrongophobe accepts this.

As in the federal trial lets him walk (monetarily). You (emphasis added by DQ) should come up for air little house plant. Been tapping this vein way too long.

Isn't this the "Official Lance Armstrong Thread"? With over 14,000 posts in this fourth version?

But you appear to want to make it the MarkVW and D-Queued thread? Didn't know I was so important to warrant displacing the great Armstrong.

I haven't posted here regularly, if at all, in months, or even years and yet you try and make this thread about me?

Have no fear fanboys, Lance may be on the verge of heading back to the trailer park but there appears to be at least one fanboy still working the cause.

Dave.

Email list and timing is everything.

Sure hope Julian, Ricky, and Bubbles with all his kitty's can handle LA.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

(Maybe as Sfi noted someone can hook you up with that dead pony humping gif.)

Pray tell, how do you fix a structural problem?

By subverting prosecution of those that perpetuate it and derive the greatest personal benefit from it?

Dave.

By, um, going after the structure and not its image symptoms. You seem about the last of clinic posters to get this.

Hence why I take issue with your assessment. Anyone rating your opinion could check back 6 years. No update. Mark threw expletives at me, actually, I had nothing to do with him. If this is touchy for you, breathe before posting and keep the fanboys in your pants.

 

[86TDFWinner]

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

Absolutely, don't pay too much attention to Marky Mark. Betsy could walk past with a nose longer than a carrot, everyone could be pointing to it, and he would still not acknowledge her lying.

Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.

Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).

I mean, take Nike: what's the upside? There is none, all they do is remind people that they were steadfast in their support of him. And - let's be realists here - Nike going after him also serves to push the next generation of sporting stars into the arms of their rivals (Under Armour, Adidas, Puma etc), who wants to be backed by a sponsor who's going to litigate the hell out of you should you do anything - anything - to upset them (and this isn't just doping, look at the likes of Ryan Lochte or Tiger Woods)? That doesn't make sense. The best thing a sponsor can do with a toxic star is walk away and hope the world quickly forgets their association. Reminding them of it? That's stupid.

(Now you could, if you tried really, really hard, make a case that some of the penny-ante sponsors could gain by initiating a lawsuit and running away before too much time racked up on the clock, that some penny-ante sponsor could surf a wave of publicity around the threat of such a suit, but in the wake of the failed class action suits I'm not sure a penny-ante sponsor would actually get to ride that wave for very long, so I'm not sure there's all that much to gain by doing it at this stage of the game.)

Trek would become an even BIGGER embarassment than they currently are of they went ahead and tried suing Wonderboy. I still believe it's going to take both them and Jokely, decades to recover from Wonderboy being a fraud. I still chuckle at the thought that Jokely is still paying Greg fat $$$(and he deserves EVERY PENNY too) for dumping all over him for years.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping.

Except for the fact Wiesel was always okay with doping, and ran doped teams prior to USPS. ex. Subaru-Montgomery,
It's also worth remembering Wiesel was very involved in the team. If I recall correctly, Hamilton complained the guy was micro-managing the team during one of TdF editions.

I believe the book Wheelmen has the quote about Thom being okay with doping and Lemond disagreeing.

I do agree that so much history is rewritten with a kind of boring A->B->C-> narrative as if it were all a foregone conclusion.

You're correct, it's in Wheelmen.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping.

Except for the fact Wiesel was always okay with doping, and ran doped teams prior to USPS. ex. Subaru-Montgomery,
It's also worth remembering Wiesel was very involved in the team. If I recall correctly, Hamilton complained the guy was micro-managing the team during one of TdF editions.

I believe the book Wheelmen has the quote about Thom being okay with doping and Lemond disagreeing.

I do agree that so much history is rewritten with a kind of boring A->B->C-> narrative as if it were all a foregone conclusion.

Thanks for the correction. But he did seem to have the sense to stay well clear of micromanaging doping. If he was involved in doping regimens, Hamilton, Zabriskie, et al., would surely have mentioned it in their depositions.

 

[86TDFWinner]

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

Did you all see what Steve Tilford posted on his site in regards to: Wonderboy/doping/ & LeMond? He's spot on:

I came across this comment post by Steve Tilford on his website. Very interesting perspective on Lance and how drugs change the playing field. Is spot on..

Post author
February 9, 2017 at 7:03 pm
silly – This wasn’t a post about how good Greg Lemond was. And it wasn’t a comparison between Lance and Greg. But since it came up here, I feel the need to answer.

You’re wrong on your first comment. Greg was way, way better than undoped Lance. Lance wasn’t great. He was good, but not great. I could beat him in 1992. Sometimes on courses that would seem to suit him better than me.

Then in 1993, I couldn’t stay on his wheel. That is the year that, according to the NY Times, says he was into drugs. And yes, EPO. Not 1996. It was the year he won the Triple Crown ($1,000,000) and the World Road Championships.

There is no way I could have done that any year I raced. Not even close. Greg could have beaten me at a bicycle race, my whole career, when he was 17. He was that good.

What people don’t understand is that doping doesn’t just even the playing field. It throws everyone’s chip back into a bag and you pull out a new one. Sometimes it makes you a god, other times, you hardly get much better.

Saying Lance was a better bicycle racer than Greg is like saying I was a better bike racer than Greg. Not even close.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

(Maybe as Sfi noted someone can hook you up with that dead pony humping gif.)

Pray tell, how do you fix a structural problem?

By subverting prosecution of those that perpetuate it and derive the greatest personal benefit from it?

Dave.

By, um, going after the structure and not its image symptoms. You seem about the last of clinic posters to get this.

Hence why I take issue with your assessment. Anyone rating your opinion could check back 6 years. No update. Mark threw expletives at me, actually, I had nothing to do with him. If this is touchy for you, breathe before posting and keep the fanboys in your pants.

Shallow, stupid and another set of ad hominems.

Going after the structure?

Feel free to enlighten us on what part of the structure you are talking about and how you would fix it.

Structure? Let's see:

- The Face of cycling?
- Team owners?
- Those that put the fix in on races?
- Those that construct schemes to go beyond simple performance enhancement but construct schemes for additional monetary benefit?
- Those that take advantage of sponsors?
- Those that work with sponsors to eliminate the business of other cyclists?
- Those that get sponsor reps to lie for them under oath?
- Those who work hand-in-hand with the UCI?
- In cahoots with Verdruggen/UCI and furthering corruption?
- Wanna-be race owner of the ASO/TdF?
- Plan to run for government office?

What part of the structure did Lance not belong to?

Dave.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

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

Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?

Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?