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

[MarkvW]

Sure, and that's been floated for years. But then who decides what doping control should be and why it matters?

For me, that question is extremely easy. It should be decided through the collective bargaining process with a vibrant rider's union. Not like that's ever going to happen, though.

 

[BroDeal]

With the "Level Playing Field" I assume Marco also had Hein's number to call him and tell him to keep the commissar away

Everyone was doing it

So O'Reilly says that in 1998 Armstrong used his greasy thumb on Verbruggen to put the kibosh on an uppity commissar. Why would Verbruggen care about the demands of a moderately successful one day rider? If he did then we can probably assume he was doing a lot more for riders who were bigger stars.

 

[BigBoat]

Sure, and that's been floated for years. But then who decides what doping control should be and why it matters?

And, since it's in this thread, it's already been well established that many don't care about doping control as long as arrogant, crass, as3holes don't exploit its malleable selectivity. So how's that going? And how is carping about this past doing anything to reform that now?

I think at the end of the day we have to say that those who like Lance & those who hate him need to try and get along because this has been dragging on for 5+ years now. I feel like I kind of started it all that time ago, and now its getting to be an old fight back & forth, rather the same old stuff rehashed by both sides. The only difference is Lance's side has shifted a few times from him having been clean & lack of evidence of him doping to everyone having been doped (which is partially true & also only some of the story really).

I think Lance is interesting to look at, to watch race. I wouldn't root for him or do business with him, I think he's a predator in the wild. Cycling became his habitat & he excelled, often times in a assholistic way. But sharks are still fun to watch nonetheless. I view him like a wild animal, I would keep my distance but it's interesting to look at. I think the emotional attachment many have for Lance makes it difficult on people who hate him. I dont hate him the same as I used to I suppose (now that he's confessed) but I feel sorry for those who do hate him & lambasted for it. He kind of deserves it as he has still a big bank account & nice property... it's not like were going to put him up on a cross, or throw him in with Charles Manson.

 

[frenchfry]

I really did mean "poster" in complete sincerity. I will go change it now.

For the rest, I don't know that I disagree, but I do think that this is indicative of the same old Lance PR at all costs mentality. I don't mind a liar who will tell you they're a liar and end the conversation there. But I do mind a liar who pretends to tell you they are a liar, but says they were justified in lying about it, to which you can also infer that they really don't have any remorse for their actions. I don't think Armstrong should be held liable for the entirety of the cesspool of doping that was his era, but he needs to just STFU unless he is going to do what you suggest, and burn the motherfu*ker to the ground.

Lance Armstrong is no Floyd Landis. I know that Lance thinks that is a compliment, but anyone with any rational thought thinks otherwise.

I think by definition sociopaths have a problem with sincerity. We are seeing a demonstration of this with Armstrong's relentless PR approach to telling the "truth".

You guys hire English speaking (only) attorneys with no training what-so-ever in Napoleonic Law in your bureaucracy? I ain't from Louisiana, so I have no idea how your system works...but I love France...so I got that goin' for me.

No sweat. The key is to take the obvious - and do the opposite. And especially request reams and reams of useless copies of documents to demonstrate your seriousness.

 

[Archibald]

we could extend this further with joinery being the act of joining dots. or bits of wood, that a carpenter would work with.

etc

...I think Lance is interesting to look at, to watch race. I wouldn't root for him or do business with him, I think he's a predator in the wild. Cycling became his habitat & he excelled, often times in a assholistic way. But sharks are still fun to watch nonetheless. I view him like a wild animal, I would keep my distance but it's interesting to look at. I think the emotional attachment many have for Lance makes it difficult on people who hate him. I dont hate him the same as I used to I suppose (now that he's confessed) but I feel sorry for those who do hate him & lambasted for it. He kind of deserves it as he has still a big bank account & nice property... it's not like were going to put him up on a cross, or throw him in with Charles Manson.

okay, so he calls himself a carpenter...
everyone knows he see's himself as a god, and Jesus was a carpenter.
right now he's pumping the angle that he's *****ing and moaning about having been crucified unfairly. Probably even thinks he'll rise from the dead again...


As for sharks, they're a magnificent example of evolution creating the most advanced natural predator
nothing "natural" about LA

 

[86TDFWinner]

It's clear that Lance worked with Hein. It is by no means clear that Hein worked exclusively with Lance.

I don't think that matters, nor that USADA gives a flying patoot if Hein's worked w/others. From the jump, Hein's lied time and time again about his involvement with Wonderboy, emphatically stating over and over that he's done nothing wrong, he's never seen Wonderboy dope, never taken a bribe(etc), everyone pretty much knows this. He just refuses to come to grips with the fact that others know. USADA/UCI/Wonderboy/someone will eventually drop the hammer down on ol' Heiny, bet on it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure, and that's been floated for years. But then who decides what doping control should be and why it matters?

'They' already have - anti-doping rules have been in for many years.

This is the moral issue - that doping is against the spirit of sport, which is the ultimate test of human ability. What is and is not considered a PED and method is already established.
Where it has fallen down is in its application - hence the need for an independent doping control from the governing bodies.

And, since it's in this thread, it's already been well established that many don't care about doping control as long as arrogant, crass, as3holes don't exploit its malleable selectivity. So how's that going? And how is carping about this past doing anything to reform that now?

Many? Obviously the question would be how many.
But the better question is who cares for this number.

This also addresses Markvws continuous point of riders unions deciding. This isn't X factor, there is no number to call, because you don't get a vote.
While I am in favour of a riders union - to have a strong voice for common issues, like after race transfers, contracts, accommodation standards etc
they don't get to preselect what route they should take or if they should race be called off today because 'everyones tired'.

 

[aphronesis]

'They' already have - anti-doping rules have been in for many years.

This is the moral issue - that doping is against the spirit of sport, which is the ultimate test of human ability. What is and is not considered a PED and method is already established.
Where it has fallen down is in its application - hence the need for an independent doping control from the governing bodies.



Many? Obviously the question would be how many.
But the better question is who cares for this number.

This also addresses Markvws continuous point of riders unions deciding. This isn't X factor, there is no number to call, because you don't get a vote.
While I am in favour of a riders union - to have a strong voice for common issues, like after race transfers, contracts, accommodation standards etc
they don't get to preselect what route they should take or if they should race be called off today because 'everyones tired'.

No, the obvious question wouldn't be "how many," but rather why. And, it's quite evident that the "spirit of the sport" is quite up for debate. Anyone pretending otherwise is hypocritical--if not deluded.

"They have." So what? Those rules are arguably not working. Now you may argue for better or more aggressive enforcement, but then if that needs to the case, the "spirit of the sport" will again be in question.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Most of those are the more interesting questions to me, but this has never really been the thread--or threads--for it. More a case study. And those are ethical questions (I think) not moral--which makes this thread even less the place for them.

I think there is a mixture of both.

But as a baseline, I'd say anytime there's an extreme focus on the most egregious or abnormal example--rather than the minor and fluctuating ones--then the problem isn't strictly with the example.

When I come across rider who committed a minor doping violation and engaged in minimally corruptive influence on the UCI, I guess we'll see how much play that gets on a forum dedicated to cycling.

I'm pretty sure nobody is blaming Armstrong for corrupting the world, and considering that most people think riding a bike is something kids do, I'd suggest that while this might be a major topic of discussion to cycling fans, this really isn't that big of a deal to the majority of the population.

But I'll keep my eye out for those de minimis doping violations and corruptive influences and make sure to open a thread on them when they happen...oh wait, maybe I'll just add it to the "fatty dopers" thread or something...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think at the end of the day we have to say that those who like Lance & those who hate him need to try and get along because this has been dragging on for 5+ years now. I feel like I kind of started it all that time ago, and now its getting to be an old fight back & forth, rather the same old stuff rehashed by both sides. The only difference is Lance's side has shifted a few times from him having been clean & lack of evidence of him doping to everyone having been doped (which is partially true & also only some of the story really).

I think Lance is interesting to look at, to watch race. I wouldn't root for him or do business with him, I think he's a predator in the wild. Cycling became his habitat & he excelled, often times in a assholistic way. But sharks are still fun to watch nonetheless. I view him like a wild animal, I would keep my distance but it's interesting to look at. I think the emotional attachment many have for Lance makes it difficult on people who hate him. I dont hate him the same as I used to I suppose (now that he's confessed) but I feel sorry for those who do hate him & lambasted for it. He kind of deserves it as he has still a big bank account & nice property... it's not like were going to put him up on a cross, or throw him in with Charles Manson.

This is good - but IMO you are right, and you and wrong.

I don't hate Lance, never have, never will.
But I do love cycling, the sport and that is the difference between my view and those who have an emotional attachment to Armstrong, or indeed any rider or team.
Armstrong needed to be exposed not because of his personality, his wealth, his looks, his star sign - but because he was being protected and this then became the standard.

So O'Reilly says that in 1998 Armstrong used his greasy thumb on Verbruggen to put the kibosh on an uppity commissar. Why would Verbruggen care about the demands of a moderately successful one day rider? If he did then we can probably assume he was doing a lot more for riders who were bigger stars.

The C word.
Cancer - he already had Verbruggen and the UCI over a barrell because they should have detected it numerous times, they knew this, he calls Hein answers.

 

[aphronesis]

I think there is a mixture of both.



When I come across rider who committed a minor doping violation and engaged in minimally corruptive influence on the UCI, I guess we'll see how much play that gets on a forum dedicated to cycling.

I'm pretty sure nobody is blaming Armstrong for corrupting the world, and considering that most people think riding a bike is something kids do, I'd suggest that while this might be a major topic of discussion to cycling fans, this really isn't that big of a deal to the majority of the population.

But I'll keep my eye out for those de minimis doping violations and corruptive influences and make sure to open a thread on them when they happen...oh wait, maybe I'll just add it to the "fatty dopers" thread or something...

Blaming? Maybe not. At the same time if one is looking for factual updates, I'd say 95% of the posts and opinions could easily be cut from this thread as redundant. Mindlessly so.

The argument used to be that the stalwarts had to keep reposting the same counter arguments because PS interns and groupies would otherwise bury the actual anti-mythical facts deep in the thread. We're well past that point now.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Blaming? Maybe not. At the same time if one is looking for factual updates, I'd say 95% of the posts and opinions could easily be cut from this thread as redundant. Mindlessly so.

Simple solution. Don't put the cursor thing over the link to the thready thing and click and your world is beautiful. It's CN's supposed job to do the "factual" thing. This here is about opinion.

 

[aphronesis]

Simple solution. Don't put the cursor thing over the link to the thready thing and click and your world is beautiful.

Hey, you're right. That is a simple solution. Makes me wonder why anyone believing that would bother with anything complex what so ever. Law school say?

 

[Race Radio]

So O'Reilly says that in 1998 Armstrong used his greasy thumb on Verbruggen to put the kibosh on an uppity commissar. Why would Verbruggen care about the demands of a moderately successful one day rider? If he did then we can probably assume he was doing a lot more for riders who were bigger stars.

No, it was because that riders Boss was already doing business with Hein. The rider's agent was on the IOC board. Hein and Lance were business partners on multiple deals, one that was worth close to a billion dollars.....was this something he did with all riders? If so which ones?

 

[Race Radio]

More from Emma.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-chiefs-helped-drug-cheat-Armstrong-hook.html

Expect more of these stories.

USADA has said they don't think Lance can add much as most of his story is known. The gradual drip of stories about how close he was with Hein/Pat and how he received special treatment is an desperate attempt to remain relevant.

At this point is there any level of corruption that Lance could talk about that would surprise anyone?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, the obvious question wouldn't be "how many," but rather why. And, it's quite evident that the "spirit of the sport" is quite up for debate. Anyone pretending otherwise is hypocritical--if not deluded.

What is hypocritical or deluded about seeking sport to be exactly that, sport.

You are getting your ad-hominens in early, usually a sign of someone who cannot argue a point.
If you think taking or allowing PEDs is in 'the spirit of sport' by all means say so, indeed the admission may explain your view.

"They have." So what? Those rules are arguably not working. Now you may argue for better or more aggressive enforcement, but then if that needs to the case, the "spirit of the sport" will again be in question.

Indeed - anti-doping needs better enforcement, and at no point did I suggest nor do I think that is the only thing that needs addressing.

 

[Scott SoCal]

It's clear that Lance worked with Hein. It is by no means clear that Hein worked exclusively with Lance.

7 in a row.

According to Livingston, Ullrich never raced with a haematocrit count over 42.

Iban Mayo was later targeted and popped by the UCI.

Pantani. Beloki, et al.

Pretty obvious LA enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the UCI that others did not.

 

[Scott SoCal]

For me, that question is extremely easy. It should be decided through the collective bargaining process with a vibrant rider's union. Not like that's ever going to happen, though.

Which would virtually assure rampant doping forever.

Think NFL, NBA, MLB and big time pro Football. All clean as a whistle.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No, it was because that riders Boss was already doing business with Hein. The rider's agent was on the IOC board. Hein and Lance were business partners on multiple deals, one that was worth close to a billion dollars.....was this something he did with all riders? If so which ones?

I think the point is that in 1998, no-one knew how successful Lance was going to be. The "deals" at that point weren't worth very much.

The dominant post-Festina rider could have been one of many "likely lads", as predicting senior, top-level success from junior or early career promise is one of the hardest things to do in sport. Even after the 1998 Vuelta, very few pundits were tipping Lance for anything in the 1999 Tour. He was the cheapest team leader in Cycling Weekly's "Fantasy Tour", for example. I remember this well as I put Lance in my team as an afterthought and he won me a sackful of points. (So far, USADA has not stripped me of these, so my high finish that year still stands. )

So it's unlikely that such a canny operator as Hein would have bet everything on Lance. It seems more likely that he would have diversified and invested in several riders, knowing that most of them were doomed to be pack-fodder.

Remember Don King after the Rumble in the Jungle? "I arrived with the champ and I left with the champ". You need to keep your options open.

It's entirely possible that once Lance started winning, Hein did concentrate solely on Lance.

 

[Scott SoCal]

This is good - but IMO you are right, and you and wrong.

I don't hate Lance, never have, never will.
But I do love cycling, the sport and that is the difference between my view and those who have an emotional attachment to Armstrong, or indeed any rider or team.
Armstrong needed to be exposed not because of his personality, his wealth, his looks, his star sign - but because he was being protected and this then became the standard.


The C word.
Cancer - he already had Verbruggen and the UCI over a barrell because they should have detected it numerous times, they knew this, he calls Hein answers.

This..............

 

[RownhamHill]

If you think taking or allowing PEDs is in 'the spirit of sport' by all means say so, indeed the admission may explain your view.

Interesting comment, but isn't the spirit of sport to win?

Or at least, that's one definition of it. There was a time, not so long ago, when Rugby Union players weren't supposed to get paid to play. In Cycling it used to be considered bad form to drink water (or at least more than some miniscule amount) in a race didn't it? Corinthians football club used to withdraw a player off in one of the opposition got injured, so as not to take advantage of bad luck.

So I suppose how you define the spirit of sport might affect whether using PEDs fits within it or not?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

According to Livingston, Ullrich never raced with a haematocrit count over 42.

Livingston can presumably only comment on Ulrich post-EPO testing, though as he joined Telecom in 2000 or 2001.

I'd be gobsmacked if the 1996 and 1997 versions of Ullrich weren't considerably different to the Ullrich whilst Livingston was a team-mate.

 

[BroDeal]

The C word.
Cancer - he already had Verbruggen and the UCI over a barrell because they should have detected it numerous times, they knew this, he calls Hein answers.

Can we get our stories straight? Was Verbruggen doing favors that he did not do for anyone else because Armstrong was diagnosed with cancer? Or was he doing special favors because he was involved in a billion dollar deal with Armstrong? For a billion dollar wheeler dealer, those $25K and $100K bribes look very small, especially when they have to be shared with a several others in the UCI to keep them quiet.

 

[Race Radio]

I think the point is that in 1998, no-one knew how successful Lance was going to be. The "deals" at that point weren't worth very much.

As Dr Mas wrote the Cancer card was big. There were also financial ties. Och was managing Hein's money when he worked at Robert W. Baird & Co in the 90's and brought Hein's account over when he started working for Thom Weasel, owner of the USPS team, in 2001. Add to this Stapleton, Armstrong's agent, was already on the USOC board member.

Any other rider have this level of access? Nope

 

[Race Radio]

Was Verbruggen doing favors that he did not do for anyone else

Good question.....do you have an answer?

What other riders had Hein phone number and talked to him daily? Och is the Godfather of lance's kid and he managed Hein's cash.....did any other riders have this access?