• 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 562 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 21, 2015
341
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

D-Queued said:
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.

Yup. Aphro is right.

Guys like you have not learned anything for at least ten years. It is just sad, and maybe even pathetic. You are so focused on your hatred of Armstrong you cannot see the big picture. It is like staring at something three inches from your face, unable to focus on anything beyond that.

The rationalization for your myopia is truly extraordinary. Goebbels could not have done it better.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

DamianoMachiavelli said:
86TDFWinner said:
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?

Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.
 
Re: Re:

DamianoMachiavelli said:
...

Yup. Aphro is right.

Guys like you have not learned anything for at least ten years. It is just sad, and maybe even pathetic. You are so focused on your hatred of Armstrong you cannot see the big picture. It is like staring at something three inches from your face, unable to focus on anything beyond that.

The rationalization for your myopia is truly extraordinary. Goebbels could not have done it better.

Sad!?!?

Ha!

I've just been Trumped!

Oh, and Nazified in the same post.

Now that is a first.

Surprised you didn't suggest I was promoting fake news.

Yup, you got me with your compelling logic and well-reasoned arguments. Lots of data to back you up, I'm sure.

Dave.
 
Re: Re:

D-Queued said:
aphronesis said:
D-Queued said:
aphronesis said:
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.

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
...

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.

"None of those other things are really structure"?

Then please feel free to educate me on the structure of the sport and what you meant by doping being a problem of the structure.

As you cogitate on that, please allow me to offer one view of that 'structure'. Your view may differ, but doesn't the sports structure directly involve four main groups: The UCI, The Race Owners (ASO in particular), The Teams and their Owners, and The Sponsors?

Cyclists themselves are not part of the actual structure, but require a UCI license to participate in it.

The IOC, WADA, WADA Labs and ADAs are outside the direct structure of the sport, albeit strong influencers.

Please allow me further to further illustrate how Lance has differed from all other participants in his dealings with, and being part of, the sport structure.

The UCI:

According to the uci.ch website, the UCI is "The world governing body for the sport of cycling recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)."

1. Lance, unlike any other cyclist, donated money (on multiple occasions) to the UCI that was denied by the UCI
2. Claimed the donations to have been for a purpose that was not only comical in the assertion of aiding doping control, but had a strong appearance of trying to hide his own doping. In hindsight, it is relevant that Lance's doping now accepted as fact including by his own admission. It has also been suggested, and never adequately refuted, that this money (and possibly other money) may have somehow purposefully enriched UCI leadership directly or indirectly.
3. The UCI has never been able to 'square accounts' on the donations and articulate the use-of-proceeds
4. Appeared to be, and was documented to be, in cahoots with UCI management on a number of items including the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF
5. Apparently received special treatment from the UCI wrt a doping positive at the TdS.
6. Allegedly received forewarning of 'surprise' doping tests
7. Had a complete work of fiction (The Vrijman report) sponsored and touted by the UCI to exonerate him from the Ressiot L'Equipe article "The Armstrong Lie". for grins and giggles please consider a refresher read from the "WADA OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON INACCURACIES OF VRIJMAN REPORT": https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/legal/wada-official-statement-on-inaccuracies-of-vrijman-report.

An extract:

"...a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all the facts ... Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading..."

Please name another cyclist for whom the UCI protected and sponsored such a whitewash for.

The Race Owners

1. See above point on the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF

Teams and Team Owners:

1. Lance was a part owner of Tailwind. As such, this made him part of the structure as opposed to a participant. Not only that, this ownership was something he tried to hide in the original SCA case. No doubt his status as an owner may well be considered by the jury (i.e. the degree of his control) in the current Floyd Landis/USPS Qui Tam case.

Again, this is unique. How many other cyclists, current and past, have been owners/part owners of their team while they were still racing?

Sponsors:

1. Lance's relationship with Trek and Oakley, and arguably Nike as well, differs considerably from those of other athletes. Among other things, as noted above, his influence on Trek led to the Trek v. LeMond legal case that was ultimately settled in favor of LeMond.

It was your assertion that it was the structure that needed to be addressed, was it not?

I actually agree with you that we should be more concerned with a corrupt structure if we want to fix the sport.

My contention is that this is one of, if not the biggest reasons why Lance should not be forgiven nor forgotten. Unlike others, he was a player in the sport's structure and he used that power towards his corruption.

Of course, Lance is still one of many in his own doping story. Perhaps we can agree on that point.

This story won't be complete until justice is served for Verdruggen, The Hog, and the many other direct contributors.

YMMV

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

86TDFWinner said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
86TDFWinner said:
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?

Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.

Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

thehog said:
86TDFWinner said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
86TDFWinner said:
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?

Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.

Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?

The Biebs is all yours, thanks.

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

thehog said:
86TDFWinner said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
86TDFWinner said:
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?

Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.

Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?
Lmao Hoggy. I'm just asking a question of this person & hope to receive an answer(which I doubt I will). But you're right.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

DamianoMachiavelli said:
86TDFWinner said:
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?

So you're basically making this up about what Betsy and Greg supposedly "lied about", and when further asked to provide any sort of links or proof of such "lies", You then deflect and refuse to answer? Got it.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Susan Westemeyer said:
thehog said:
Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?

Let's be careful with comments on "middle-aged Moms"........ :D

thehog sailing too close to the wind with Susan again. Just like old times :D
 
Re: Re:

D-Queued said:
aphronesis said:
...

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.

"None of those other things are really structure"?

Then please feel free to educate me on the structure of the sport and what you meant by doping being a problem of the structure.

As you cogitate on that, please allow me to offer one view of that 'structure'. Your view may differ, but doesn't the sports structure directly involve four main groups: The UCI, The Race Owners (ASO in particular), The Teams and their Owners, and The Sponsors?

Cyclists themselves are not part of the actual structure, but require a UCI license to participate in it.

The IOC, WADA, WADA Labs and ADAs are outside the direct structure of the sport, albeit strong influencers.

Please allow me further to further illustrate how Lance has differed from all other participants in his dealings with, and being part of, the sport structure.

The UCI:

According to the uci.ch website, the UCI is "The world governing body for the sport of cycling recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)."

1. Lance, unlike any other cyclist, donated money (on multiple occasions) to the UCI that was denied by the UCI
2. Claimed the donations to have been for a purpose that was not only comical in the assertion of aiding doping control, but had a strong appearance of trying to hide his own doping. In hindsight, it is relevant that Lance's doping now accepted as fact including by his own admission. It has also been suggested, and never adequately refuted, that this money (and possibly other money) may have somehow purposefully enriched UCI leadership directly or indirectly.
3. The UCI has never been able to 'square accounts' on the donations and articulate the use-of-proceeds
4. Appeared to be, and was documented to be, in cahoots with UCI management on a number of items including the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF
5. Apparently received special treatment from the UCI wrt a doping positive at the TdS.
6. Allegedly received forewarning of 'surprise' doping tests
7. Had a complete work of fiction (The Vrijman report) sponsored and touted by the UCI to exonerate him from the Ressiot L'Equipe article "The Armstrong Lie". for grins and giggles please consider a refresher read from the "WADA OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON INACCURACIES OF VRIJMAN REPORT": https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/legal/wada-official-statement-on-inaccuracies-of-vrijman-report.

An extract:

"...a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all the facts ... Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading..."

Please name another cyclist for whom the UCI protected and sponsored such a whitewash for.

The Race Owners

1. See above point on the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF

Teams and Team Owners:

1. Lance was a part owner of Tailwind. As such, this made him part of the structure as opposed to a participant. Not only that, this ownership was something he tried to hide in the original SCA case. No doubt his status as an owner may well be considered by the jury (i.e. the degree of his control) in the current Floyd Landis/USPS Qui Tam case.

Again, this is unique. How many other cyclists, current and past, have been owners/part owners of their team while they were still racing?

Sponsors:

1. Lance's relationship with Trek and Oakley, and arguably Nike as well, differs considerably from those of other athletes. Among other things, as noted above, his influence on Trek led to the Trek v. LeMond legal case that was ultimately settled in favor of LeMond.

It was your assertion that it was the structure that needed to be addressed, was it not?

I actually agree with you that we should be more concerned with a corrupt structure if we want to fix the sport.

My contention is that this is one of, if not the biggest reasons why Lance should not be forgiven nor forgotten. Unlike others, he was a player in the sport's structure and he used that power towards his corruption.

Of course, Lance is still one of many in his own doping story. Perhaps we can agree on that point.

This story won't be complete until justice is served for Verdruggen, The Hog, and the many other direct contributors.

YMMV

Dave.

Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
D-Queued said:
aphronesis said:
...

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.

"None of those other things are really structure"?

Then please feel free to educate me on the structure of the sport and what you meant by doping being a problem of the structure.

As you cogitate on that, please allow me to offer one view of that 'structure'. Your view may differ, but doesn't the sports structure directly involve four main groups: The UCI, The Race Owners (ASO in particular), The Teams and their Owners, and The Sponsors?

Cyclists themselves are not part of the actual structure, but require a UCI license to participate in it.

The IOC, WADA, WADA Labs and ADAs are outside the direct structure of the sport, albeit strong influencers.

Please allow me further to further illustrate how Lance has differed from all other participants in his dealings with, and being part of, the sport structure.

The UCI:

According to the uci.ch website, the UCI is "The world governing body for the sport of cycling recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)."

1. Lance, unlike any other cyclist, donated money (on multiple occasions) to the UCI that was denied by the UCI
2. Claimed the donations to have been for a purpose that was not only comical in the assertion of aiding doping control, but had a strong appearance of trying to hide his own doping. In hindsight, it is relevant that Lance's doping now accepted as fact including by his own admission. It has also been suggested, and never adequately refuted, that this money (and possibly other money) may have somehow purposefully enriched UCI leadership directly or indirectly.
3. The UCI has never been able to 'square accounts' on the donations and articulate the use-of-proceeds
4. Appeared to be, and was documented to be, in cahoots with UCI management on a number of items including the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF
5. Apparently received special treatment from the UCI wrt a doping positive at the TdS.
6. Allegedly received forewarning of 'surprise' doping tests
7. Had a complete work of fiction (The Vrijman report) sponsored and touted by the UCI to exonerate him from the Ressiot L'Equipe article "The Armstrong Lie". for grins and giggles please consider a refresher read from the "WADA OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON INACCURACIES OF VRIJMAN REPORT": https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/legal/wada-official-statement-on-inaccuracies-of-vrijman-report.

An extract:

"...a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all the facts ... Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading..."

Please name another cyclist for whom the UCI protected and sponsored such a whitewash for.

The Race Owners

1. See above point on the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF

Teams and Team Owners:

1. Lance was a part owner of Tailwind. As such, this made him part of the structure as opposed to a participant. Not only that, this ownership was something he tried to hide in the original SCA case. No doubt his status as an owner may well be considered by the jury (i.e. the degree of his control) in the current Floyd Landis/USPS Qui Tam case.

Again, this is unique. How many other cyclists, current and past, have been owners/part owners of their team while they were still racing?

Sponsors:

1. Lance's relationship with Trek and Oakley, and arguably Nike as well, differs considerably from those of other athletes. Among other things, as noted above, his influence on Trek led to the Trek v. LeMond legal case that was ultimately settled in favor of LeMond.

It was your assertion that it was the structure that needed to be addressed, was it not?

I actually agree with you that we should be more concerned with a corrupt structure if we want to fix the sport.

My contention is that this is one of, if not the biggest reasons why Lance should not be forgiven nor forgotten. Unlike others, he was a player in the sport's structure and he used that power towards his corruption.

Of course, Lance is still one of many in his own doping story. Perhaps we can agree on that point.

This story won't be complete until justice is served for Verdruggen, The Hog, and the many other direct contributors.

YMMV

Dave.

Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.

I guess you got all the livewrong gear, including the jimmyjams :rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re:

aphronesis said:
Look at you little flower. Like a doorbell (knob) you're to be counted on. Mom still paying for you wifi account Benotti? People were almost taking you seriously.

Jimmy jams from the masochistic spectator nun ne plus ultra.

Mommy says time for my jimjams and bed. Laters :lol:
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
...

Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.

:lol:

Oh, and try and follow the plot here. You commented about structure. I responded on structure.

Ok, the attempted purchase of ASO/TdF was post Posties (2006-8). Pretty much everything else was Postal related or connected. The attempted purchase of ASO/TdF, however, is relevant on a discussion of Lance's impact on the sport's structure, however, as noted by The Sydney Morning Herald:

Rumours are circulating that behind Armstrong's decision, which will allow him to race in next year's Tour de France, is an audacious plan that will change the face of cycling. http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/once-he-dominated--now-lance-could-own-the-tour/2008/09/19/1221331205913.html

Now, you want to switch the subject - one that you introduced - again. :rolleyes:

Your arguments are vapid.

Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.

'His corruption' refers to more than just Lance himself. He corrupted the sport, not the reverse. Knowing just how bad cycling was way back when he began tilting the scale, that is quite a feat.

Dave.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
D-Queued said:
Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.

Thanks for the clarification.

Not sure it makes me feel any better, though, about sponsor involvement.

And, yes, I heartily agree that Lance could only further pervert what was a perverted sport (point taken above ^ MarkvW) and could not possibly, in and of himself, be blamed for doping in cycling. Further, whether they were enablers or primary facilitators, wouldn't it be nice to have the involvement of the conspiring sponsors out in the open?

Dave.
 
Re: Re:

D-Queued said:
fmk_RoI said:
D-Queued said:
Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.

Thanks for the clarification.

Not sure it makes me feel any better, though, about sponsor involvement.

And, yes, I heartily agree that Lance could only further pervert what was a perverted sport (point taken above ^ MarkvW) and could not possibly, in and of himself, be blamed for doping in cycling. Further, whether they were enablers or primary facilitators, wouldn't it be nice to have the involvement of the conspiring sponsors out in the open?

Dave.

Dave .... where are you (and several others on the Clinic) going with all this, man?

You gotta know that outside these sweaty walls, your angsts don't get much play time. Not that shey shouldn't or should ... they don't. Most people have moved on.

That you're seemingly bothered by what sponsors have done ... I mean .... what do you do, what can you do with that? And the "wouldn't it be nice" song about "conspiring sponsors." You'll get numbers to follow you "on here" if the sponsors are outed ... but who else would listen? Again, not that they shouldn't or should listen to you ... they wouldn't.

The moral relativists are right (but wrong from your moral judgement point). Maybe you are waiting for some big nail in the coffin that will give you some relief. If he took your woman, you gotta punch him out. If he won dirty, while you lost clean ... whatya gonna do about it? Commiserate with Binotti? If that's not who you are ... give yourself a break, man.

Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
D-Queued said:
fmk_RoI said:
D-Queued said:
Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.


Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?
Why do you care?
 
Re: Re:

kingjr said:
Alpe73 said:
D-Queued said:
fmk_RoI said:
D-Queued said:
Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.


Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?
Why do you care?

Like morality ... caring is relative, as well. I average about 35 posts per year. Dave (for example) ... 750 per year.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
...
Dave .... where are you (and several others on the Clinic) going with all this, man?

You gotta know that outside these sweaty walls, your angsts don't get much play time. Not that shey shouldn't or should ... they don't. Most people have moved on.

That you're seemingly bothered by what sponsors have done ... I mean .... what do you do, what can you do with that? And the "wouldn't it be nice" song about "conspiring sponsors." You'll get numbers to follow you "on here" if the sponsors are outed ... but who else would listen? Again, not that they shouldn't or should listen to you ... they wouldn't.

The moral relativists are right (but wrong from your moral judgement point). Maybe you are waiting for some big nail in the coffin that will give you some relief. If he took your woman, you gotta punch him out. If he won dirty, while you lost clean ... whatya gonna do about it? Commiserate with Binotti? If that's not who you are ... give yourself a break, man.

Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?

Dear Alpe73,

This is the Lance Armstrong thread, not the D-Queued thread. Discussing my participation is a waste of bandwidth. Even if the remaining readers are few, they don't need their time to be wasted. If you want to send a message, go ahead and DM me.

Since you insist, however, for the record, please observe my record.

You might note that I have uttered barely a whisper in this forum for years as real news about Lance's case has diminished. Yet, after a single post commenting on real news, it is striking that I have been the recipient of ongoing ad hominem attacks. What is the agenda?

Now, especially in the current climate of abandoning all pretense of ethics and truthfulness, if you cannot fathom why the big dopie needs to receive the full measure of justice that is long and well deserved, then please put me on ignore and go ahead and sleep better.

Yes, I am bothered by what the sponsors did. The apparent forcing of Stephanie to lie for Lance is just nasty. As for Nike, please do some research on their origins with Steve Prefontaine. It is gut-wrenching, to say the least, to see them as doping facilitators.

To that point, please allow me to offer a quote on the Salazar affair (following on FMK's introduced topic) from Ben Cook (Former Nike Oregon Project Coach “Not Surprised” by Doping Allegations http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/former-nike-oregon-project-coach-not-surprised-by-doping-allegations):

The other thing that bothers me: I knew Steve Prefontaine pretty well, and I knew Bill Bowerman a little bit, and respected him a great deal. I don’t think they’d be happy with what’s going on in the sport right now. I’m not saying you have to go back to the old days. I’m not that stupid. But that part of the sport is gone. And that’s the part of the sport I like.

Dave.