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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram