• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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 591 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
fasthill said:
One of those times when his opinion is as good as a Fred's.

One of those times when his opinion fits very well with everything we know about the case.

For those of you who follow Major League Baseball, the situation of Albert Pujols has a sliver of similarity to LA’s federal case. No, Pujols hasn’t tested positive. The question is, his age. He’s officially 38, but many people think he’s older, perhaps by two years. He came to the U.S. from the Dominican in his teens, and lying about his age might have been critical to being allowed to go to high school here.

But the reason people think he might be older than he claims is because his decline in performance—which all baseball players undergo—has come unusually early. Players usually peak in their late 20s, are still pretty good in their early 30s (given they can avoid injury), then serious decline sets in. Pujols’ decline was quite noticeable before age 30, and has been quite severe ever since.

Now for the parallel with LA. When Pujols was 31, he signed a huge contract with another team. Thanks to his decline, that contract is considered one of the worst in baseball. It’s typical of teams to offer superstars huge contracts at around this age, on the assumption that they will get a few really good years, which will make up for the poor performance later. But if Pujols was actually 33, not 31, he was unlikely to perform very well even in the early years of the contract, and that basically has been the case. So the question arises, could the team sue to have the contract invalidated, based on false information?

The parallel with LA also includes the same problem the feds had in arguing that they lost money because of LA’s doping. The manager and GM of Pujols’ team have on the record supported him, saying he’s very valuable, and that the advanced stats that are the basis for viewing him as one of the worst players in the game don’t take into account some of his contributions. So if the team did try to sue on the basis of fraud, they would have a problem rationalizing their own statements.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-angels-could-get-out-of-paying-albert-pujols/
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Scott SoCal said:
Iirc, he was a pretty savvy investor when he was racing. He’s probably better now than then. Depending on his portfolio - for a guy his age - he’s likely done reasonably well.
How many of the Tailwind people worked in stocks and shares? Which one was it is supposed to have made a fortune for Verbruggen in return for the backdated prescription? Funny how those who need LA to be down to peanuts forget all about this...

no need.

Someone blogged and it is not someone with no life experience either.

But pedantics needs apart.... :rolleyes:

I've said all along, Wonderboy has probably been transferring millions offshore into offshore accounts, he's certainly not stupid money wise. This entire situation has allowed him enough time to conveniently "misplace" millions elsewhere, he knew exactly what he was doing.
 
Re: Re:

86TDFWinner said:
Benotti69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Scott SoCal said:
Iirc, he was a pretty savvy investor when he was racing. He’s probably better now than then. Depending on his portfolio - for a guy his age - he’s likely done reasonably well.
How many of the Tailwind people worked in stocks and shares? Which one was it is supposed to have made a fortune for Verbruggen in return for the backdated prescription? Funny how those who need LA to be down to peanuts forget all about this...

no need.

Someone blogged and it is not someone with no life experience either.

But pedantics needs apart.... :rolleyes:

I've said all along, Wonderboy has probably been transferring millions offshore into offshore accounts, he's certainly not stupid money wise. This entire situation has allowed him enough time to conveniently "misplace" millions elsewhere, he knew exactly what he was doing.

Who cares what Armstrong does with his money ? It's not our concern.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
86TDFWinner said:
Benotti69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Scott SoCal said:
Iirc, he was a pretty savvy investor when he was racing. He’s probably better now than then. Depending on his portfolio - for a guy his age - he’s likely done reasonably well.
How many of the Tailwind people worked in stocks and shares? Which one was it is supposed to have made a fortune for Verbruggen in return for the backdated prescription? Funny how those who need LA to be down to peanuts forget all about this...

no need.

Someone blogged and it is not someone with no life experience either.

But pedantics needs apart.... :rolleyes:

I've said all along, Wonderboy has probably been transferring millions offshore into offshore accounts, he's certainly not stupid money wise. This entire situation has allowed him enough time to conveniently "misplace" millions elsewhere, he knew exactly what he was doing.

Who cares what Armstrong does with his money ? It's not our concern.

:D :lol: Apparently, MANY do. You're posting in a thread about Wonderboy, some 740 pages in.
 
Downing shots in Miami? Scandalous. Probably some exposed arms and backs in the place as well. Legs maybe.

Not sure where I left my bonnet and knitting.....

Maybe there’s a website where you can get yourself sent a personalized “I’m sorry” ecard.

Gotta wait for the hospital room story though. Keep hope alive brother.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Who cares what Armstrong does with his money ? It's not our concern.

I'll open Dirty's Savings and Loans because I promise, it' "a bank." I'll accept deposits under the premise I'm running "a bank." Even the regulator for "Dirty S&L" confirms I'm "a bank." I will tell the world I run the best bank and it's a real bank for years and litigate anyone who dare suggest I'm not running a bank.

Then I'll close Dirty S&L and keep the money. And then I'll have an interview with Oprah Winfrey and tell the world I was never running a real bank, never had any intention of running a real bank.

It looked like a bank. Accepted deposits like a bank. Yet closed and took your money. I can keep your money, right?

I have to figure out how to make such a fraudulent enterprise. Yaco will give me money.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
yaco said:
Who cares what Armstrong does with his money ? It's not our concern.

I'll open Dirty's Savings and Loans because I promise, it' "a bank." I'll accept deposits under the premise I'm running "a bank." Even the regulator for "Dirty S&L" confirms I'm "a bank." I will tell the world I run the best bank and it's a real bank for years and litigate anyone who dare suggest I'm not running a bank.

Then I'll close Dirty S&L and keep the money. And then I'll have an interview with Oprah Winfrey and tell the world I was never running a real bank, never had any intention of running a real bank.

It looked like a bank. Accepted deposits like a bank. Yet closed and took your money. I can keep your money, right?

I have to figure out how to make such a fraudulent enterprise. Yaco will give me money.
:D :lol:
 
Has anyone else been listening to this idiot’s podcast? Mrs 42x16ss had the latest one on the other day and Lance was ranting about how QS have achieved their goals for the year and will only be pack fill for the rest of the season...

I damn near smashed something. Hopefully Viviani keeps it up in the sprints, and I’m now supporting Jungels to win the Tour just so Armstrong has to admit he’s ****ed in the head.
 
Re:

42x16ss said:
Has anyone else been listening to this idiot’s podcast? Mrs 42x16ss had the latest one on the other day and Lance was ranting about how QS have achieved their goals for the year and will only be pack fill for the rest of the season...

I damn near smashed something. Hopefully Viviani keeps it up in the sprints, and I’m now supporting Jungels to win the Tour just so Armstrong has to admit he’s ****ed in the head.

Which we've known for years and he won't admit to
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
Couldn't get in the VIP tent?

200-RTS1Q3CU.jpg
 
Re:

ebandit said:
I gave up at US postal never really doped much...just a couple of units of blood etc etc per tour...................

Mark L

They were highly intelligent about their doping, and the whole team was laser-focused on peaking for the Tour only.

The discussion of lactate threshold was extremely interesting, pointing out that Lance's threshold was remarkably high, while other athletes, like Phelps have a really low lactate threshold because they can clear the stuff so efficiently.

Also points out how it is healthier to ride the Tour with steroids, than to ride without.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

thehog said:
No Michelob Ultra?

No autograph seekers? None of the other fans asking for selfies?

It's too bad Cookson isn't there. He can always be counted on for a selfie.
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
ebandit said:
I gave up at US postal never really doped much...just a couple of units of blood etc etc per tour...................

Mark L

They were highly intelligent about their doping, and the whole team was laser-focused on peaking for the Tour only.

The discussion of lactate threshold was extremely interesting, pointing out that Lance's threshold was remarkably high, while other athletes, like Phelps have a really low lactate threshold because they can clear the stuff so efficiently.

Also points out how it is healthier to ride the Tour with steroids, than to ride without.

Fully agree, well said.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession


I think there are a few possible explanations why people believe in him:

1) The Secret Race is actually a well-written and entertaining book and its Amazon rating is something like 4.8/5.0. I think that in many cases it is the only cycling related book people have read. (I was surprised when it was translated into Finnish in 2013 as there are honestly like a five cycling books a decade translated into my language. Juliet Macur's Lance-biography also was translated into Finnish the next year.)

2) There was a strange atmosphere in 2012 when everyone just had to make the decision whether to believe Lance or not and there was a great demand for anti-Lance material and it wasn't a great moment to be skeptical about anything about anyone of Lance's opponents without risking being called a "Lance fanboy" or something similar. Later the momentum was gone and the guy was promoted to the status of a saint.

3) Tyler is clever in not making that many untruths in which you can definitely say that they are deliberate lies instead of just flawed recollections or just him misreading certain events.

4) He is so intimate about many things, so people think he isn't withholding any information.

But there is no doubt that it is troubling that some authors use his memoirs as the sole source on some stories (the 2004 Dauphine UCI phone call, switched blood bags etc.) not even specifying that he is the source in the body text (e.g. "During Dauphiné, Lance made a phone call to Hein Verbruggen about Hamilton" and you must go through the references to find out that it is based on his memoirs)
Daniel Friebe's new Ullrich biography has
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession


Slightly OFF-topic, but the more there emerges new information, the more I see Tyler Hamilton as a witness with possible credibility issues. Occasionally my reading is that the one "Believe Tyler"-crowd had been substituted with another one (a larger one that also believes everything he says), because many people seem to believe the cute Tyler telling now the whole truth only because he has said that he is doing so.

Just think the following episodes when he tested positive:

1) His 2004 Homologous blood doping positive. Tyler says that either the test was flawed or there was a mixup of blood bags and in his memoirs he is totally clueless why anyone would use intentionally anyone else's blood. What we do know is that the Kelme rider Jesús Manzano was offered this method around 2002 and Tyler had many former Kelme riders in the Phonak team (Enrique Gutiérrez, Óscar Sevilla and Santi Pérez) of whom Pérez also tested positive for the same thing (that is a red flag if anything is).

In addition, his regular training partner Levi Leipheimer used blood of his brother at the 2003 Vuelta. Leipheimer informed USADA about the Vuelta-episode in 6/22/2012, but curiously insists in his sworn affidavit to USADA three months later (9/21/2012) that "2005 was the first year that I transfused blood". Why wasn't the 2003 information with someone else's blood included in the document? Did USADA want the information to be withheld because the case against Dr. Leinders (the doctor) was still pending? Whatever the reason to fine-tune his recollections, it is highly suspicious when one notices the name of the public notary who authorised the document and could've consulted on the content: Haven Parchinski (Hamilton).

index.php

Yes, he did have access to the "Siberia"-freezer, but only from February 2004 onward, so it didn't make that much a change into his 2004 season. And one gets easily the impression that the guy was more-or-less addicted to transfusions between 2002 and 2004, so much he talks about the issue in the book.

2) His 2009- DHEA bust. Tyler says that it was an over-the-counter product to treat his depression and the active substance has no performance enhancing effect. The product was on the doping list, that tilts to the direction that it has one and in addition, here is a paragraph from a recent USADA decision:

No benefit clearly at all.

I am not claiming that he is lying, but only that I can't fully vouch for his credibility, to be honest.
Daniel Friebe's new Ullrich bio has a vague reference of Jörg Jaksche making a claim of Fuentes orchestrating also transfusions from matched donors, which even more raises question if Ty Hamilton only made a mistake by using matched blood occasionally until the test was introduced, meaning that there is no mystery in his 2004 positive, but only stupidity. There is also the somewhat plausible reference of Fuentes's assistants dementia as the cause for a mislabeled blood bag.

Hamilton still maintains that his 2004 Vuelta positive was sabotage. But retrospectively his April 2004 blood also tested positive. That was some four months before the homologous blood doping test was even introduced.