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

[Bosco10]

Interesting article and tilford is usually spot on with his observations.
I can pretty much guess why Lance isn't riding his bike much anymore…he doesn't strike me as having ever loved the sport.

Cycling was his way of getting his 'domination fix' and all the other shiit that is involved in Lances' messed up psyche…
let him go golf.
Maybe he and Tiger Woods can go roll around a few…

We'll he did say.. It's Not About the Bike!

 

[Granville57]

A post on Wonderboy's talk with Steve Tilford shows it's the same old Wonderboy.

http://stevetilford.com/2014/02/17/my-call-with-lance/

Couldn't be bothered reading all the comments, but most seem to see right through Lance's eternal BS. No one is fooled anymore.

I just don't understand why people simply don't:

1) Hang up on Armstrong.
2) Refuse his calls in the first place.
3) Just tell him to f'ck off.

Lance comparing his situation to John Elway? Oh that is rich.

I thought Tilford completely missed the mark with the Vietnam, Japan and Germany analogies, but I was amused by the fact the he agreed with Lance on the sanctions while totally disagreeing at the same time. He felt that Lance should've been treated the same as VDV, Hincapie and the rest, in that they all should've been given lifetime bans.

However, I'm not sure that "Big George" would all that heartbroken if he wasn't allowed to run the New York or Chicago marathons. Likewise, I doubt that Christian would lose much sleep at the prospect of never competing in an Iron Man.



I anxiously await the headline:


Lance called for an interview...


THE END

 

[RobbieCanuck]

A post on Wonderboy's talk with Steve Tilford shows it's the same old Wonderboy.

http://stevetilford.com/2014/02/17/my-call-with-lance/

Someone posted a comment about the Hincapie article that makes Hincapie's recent interview stranger still.

After reading Tilford's article it is clear LA is obsessively hung up on the fairness of the process. In Armstrong's case that USADA had no jurisdiction, U.S. District Judge Sparks had this to say about Armstrong's lack of due process challenge,

"On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process."

After this federal court found the process to be fair, Armstrong refused to participate in this process. In USADA's reasoned decision, they found numerous reasons why the most severe sanction should be imposed on Armstrong. For Armstrong to now complain to Tilford that his penalty was unfair because others received a more lenient penalty continues to show LA "just doesn't get it" Armstrong's argument is specious.

Sure maybe the others should have received harsher penalties but that does not mean LA did not get what he deserved. Dirty Works is correct, Wonderboy continues to be Wonderboy, off in la, la land (pun intended).

 

[Bosco10]

Seems he has hung himself out to dry. But come on, is being banned from triathlons really messing Lance up that badly? I wonder if he's still getting psychological help.

 

[Archibald]

Couldn't be bothered reading all the comments, but most seem to see right through Lance's eternal BS. No one is fooled anymore.

I just don't understand why people simply don't:

1) Hang up on Armstrong.
2) Refuse his calls in the first place.
3) Just tell him to f'ck off.

Didn't Tyler try that only to get abused on twitter for not answering and not returning calls?

 

[Race Radio]

A post on Wonderboy's talk with Steve Tilford shows it's the same old Wonderboy.

http://stevetilford.com/2014/02/17/my-call-with-lance/

Someone posted a comment about the Hincapie article that makes Hincapie's recent interview stranger still.

Some of the best parts

coach supplying doping products is “worse”.

Chris Comical?

He said the guy was trying to justify USADA’s budget because currently, they catch virtually no one.

Really?

https://www.usada.org/sanctions/

. I didn’t understand the upside for George to be talking to Frankie’s local paper and throwing rocks. I asked Lance why George did that and Lance said he didn’t really know why.

That is a lie, Lance got the reporter in touch with George.

 

[ralphbert]

After reading Tilford's article it is clear LA is obsessively hung up on the fairness of the process.

Yes, fairness seems a new imperative for him. Very new in fact. Never occurred to him once during the previous 15 years of cheating and bullying.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Quote:
." I didn’t understand the upside for George to be talking to Frankie’s local paper and throwing rocks. I asked Lance why George did that and Lance said he didn’t really know why."

I hope George gets asked this same question under oath…
that would be interesting

 

[BroDeal]

Armstrong is right. He was treated unfairly. It is easy to brush that off because it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. When Armstrong did not contest the charges, USADA used that as an opportunity to unload on him with both barrels. The sanction was unprecedented. It is especially strange because for a good portion of the time period in question, cycling was not under the WADA code. In fact WADA did not even exist for the early years and the code has undergone large changes and expansion over the year. The concept of a non-analytical positive did not exist until after Armstrong retired for the first time.

Tygart's account of the situation does not inspire confidence. According to him if Armstrong had not dropped out of the process then he would have kept all but two of his wins. In other words, if challenged then the USADA would have abided by the eight year limitation period but since Armstrong was not going to contest it at CAS, which probably would have found in his favor, USADA decided to toss the rules aside.

I think what happened is Tygart decided to whack Armstrong with a sanction that was totally out of line as a way of pressuring him to rat on the UCI, but Armstrong was so angry at being treated unfairly that it did not work. So now were are left with an absurd situation where some riders got away with a six month winter vacation, which initially was planned on being a zero month vacation until riders like Hincapie found out they were not being treated the same. Others, like Hesjedal, were allowed to cop to a laugh inducing confession of only using EPO a few times at Band Camp to get a European pro contract, and even that would have been kept secret if The Chicken would not have blabbed. It makes you wonder how many other bogus confessions have been hidden.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Armstrong is right. He was treated unfairly. It is easy to brush that off because it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. When Armstrong did not contest the charges, USADA used that as an opportunity to unload on him with both barrels. The sanction was unprecedented. It is especially strange because for a good portion of the time period in question, cycling was not under the WADA code. In fact WADA did not even exist for the early years and the code has undergone large changes and expansion over the year. The concept of a non-analytical positive did not exist until after Armstrong retired for the first time.

Tygart's account of the situation does not inspire confidence. According to him if Armstrong had not dropped out of the process then he would have kept all but two of his wins. In other words, if challenged then the USADA would have abided by the eight year limitation period but since Armstrong was not going to contest it at CAS, which probably would have found in his favor, USADA decided to toss the rules aside.

I think what happened is Tygart decided to whack Armstrong with a sanction that was totally out of line as a way of pressuring him to rat on the UCI, but Armstrong was so angry at being treated unfairly that it did not work. So now were are left with an absurd situation where some riders got away with a six month winter vacation, which initially was planned on being a zero month vacation until riders like Hincapie found out they were not being treated the same. Others, like Hesjedal, were allowed to cop to a laugh inducing confession of only using EPO a few times at Band Camp to get a European pro contract, and even that would have been kept secret if The Chicken would not have blabbed. It makes you wonder how many other bogus confessions have been hidden.

Bro..I don't think Tygart needs to explain to all of us every detail and nuance of Lance's tribulations and evasions in dealing/NOTdealing with USADA.

..and since we do not have all info from all sides..and since Lance is known to obfuscate and lie like a rug --seeing you declare that Travis is underhanded is frustrating. Gheezus

Lance must be really happy that there is doubt percolating and I am not about to take the side of mr George Hincapie and Armstrong...

 

[86TDFWinner]

I just don't understand why people simply don't:

1) Hang up on Armstrong.
2) Refuse his calls in the first place.

Because people like Tilford can't do that. They have to take calls in order to try to stay relevant, no one cares about Tilford until he interviews someone like Wonderboy, he and they know that.

3) Just tell him to f'ck off.

As much as i agree with you, again, he can't.

 

[Race Radio]

How cute. Hog is banned for a month but his fan club plays on

 

[42x16ss]

Yes, fairness seems a new imperative for him. Very new in fact. Never occurred to him once during the previous 15 years of cheating and bullying.

Of course, it's all he has left to cling on to. Get all the cronies singing off that songsheet and get the message out to anyone who'll listen. It's the only chance he has left for any redemption.

 

[Race Radio]

I look forward to Lance's campaign to get Tyler back his Gold medal and Floyd back his Yellow Jersey. He will launch an endless campaign to right the injustice of Basso, Ullrich, Di Lucca, Ferrari, Santuccione. Such a tragedy

 

[Scott SoCal]

Armstrong is right. He was treated unfairly. It is easy to brush that off because it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. When Armstrong did not contest the charges, USADA used that as an opportunity to unload on him with both barrels. The sanction was unprecedented. It is especially strange because for a good portion of the time period in question, cycling was not under the WADA code. In fact WADA did not even exist for the early years and the code has undergone large changes and expansion over the year. The concept of a non-analytical positive did not exist until after Armstrong retired for the first time.

Tygart's account of the situation does not inspire confidence. According to him if Armstrong had not dropped out of the process then he would have kept all but two of his wins. In other words, if challenged then the USADA would have abided by the eight year limitation period but since Armstrong was not going to contest it at CAS, which probably would have found in his favor, USADA decided to toss the rules aside.

I think what happened is Tygart decided to whack Armstrong with a sanction that was totally out of line as a way of pressuring him to rat on the UCI, but Armstrong was so angry at being treated unfairly that it did not work. So now were are left with an absurd situation where some riders got away with a six month winter vacation, which initially was planned on being a zero month vacation until riders like Hincapie found out they were not being treated the same. Others, like Hesjedal, were allowed to cop to a laugh inducing confession of only using EPO a few times at Band Camp to get a European pro contract, and even that would have been kept secret if The Chicken would not have blabbed. It makes you wonder how many other bogus confessions have been hidden.

I like Tygart's credibility.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Armstrong is right. He was treated unfairly. It is easy to brush that off because it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. When Armstrong did not contest the charges, USADA used that as an opportunity to unload on him with both barrels. The sanction was unprecedented. It is especially strange because for a good portion of the time period in question, cycling was not under the WADA code. In fact WADA did not even exist for the early years and the code has undergone large changes and expansion over the year. The concept of a non-analytical positive did not exist until after Armstrong retired for the first time.

Tygart's account of the situation does not inspire confidence. According to him if Armstrong had not dropped out of the process then he would have kept all but two of his wins. In other words, if challenged then the USADA would have abided by the eight year limitation period but since Armstrong was not going to contest it at CAS, which probably would have found in his favor, USADA decided to toss the rules aside.

I think what happened is Tygart decided to whack Armstrong with a sanction that was totally out of line as a way of pressuring him to rat on the UCI, but Armstrong was so angry at being treated unfairly that it did not work. So now were are left with an absurd situation where some riders got away with a six month winter vacation, which initially was planned on being a zero month vacation until riders like Hincapie found out they were not being treated the same. Others, like Hesjedal, were allowed to cop to a laugh inducing confession of only using EPO a few times at Band Camp to get a European pro contract, and even that would have been kept secret if The Chicken would not have blabbed. It makes you wonder how many other bogus confessions have been hidden.

You do realise that after LA responded to USADA through his lawyers, then USADA charged him which included that they could seek a lifetime ban which is in the charging letter - that is why LA ran to Federal Court.

LA had his chance, where others sat down and assisted LA did not - yet you think he deserves the same as them? Every legal system I can think of works the same way - cop a plea, get a deal, fight it and you lose.

 

[BroDeal]

Bro..I don't think Tygart needs to explain to all of us every detail and nuance of Lance's tribulations and evasions in dealing/NOTdealing with USADA.

..and since we do not have all info from all sides..and since Lance is known to obfuscate and lie like a rug --seeing you declare that Travis is underhanded is frustrating. Gheezus

You don't need to go by what Armstrong says. We can go by what Tygart himself has said.

The problem with cycling is not the doping per se. It is the corrupt system run by UCI. Everyone is required to lie. Rules exist to present a pretty facade to the public while insiders operate in the shadows, doing whatever they feel is expedient, whether it is within the rules or not. The anti-doping insiders are now operating the same way, and because they feel their crusade is righteous, there are no limits on what they might do. The rules are again ignored.

 

[Race Radio]

You do realise that after LA responded to USADA through his lawyers, then USADA charged him which included that they could seek a lifetime ban which is in the charging letter - that is why LA ran to Federal Court.

LA had his chance, where others sat down and assisted LA did not - yet you think he deserves the same as them? Every legal system I can think of works the same way - cop a plea, get a deal, fight it and you lose.

Yup. Lifetime ban in charging letter. WADA code, written by Armstrong agent Stapleton, clearly allows 6 months for cooperation. USADA talks to Lance's lawyers about a deal, invite him to tell what he knows http://www.scribd.com/doc/150499171/USADA-invite-to-Lance-Armstrong even arrange a face to face with Travis, Lance, and the Governor of Colorado.

All of USADA's attempts to reach out to him were met with the same response, Fork off, I will never admit, You are not the boss of me. On Oprah Lance said turning down USADA's offer was his biggest mistake. Given the opportunity to go back he said he would have said yes.

Now he plays the victim? Yeah, that is going to work

 

[mewmewmew13]

Lance will be busy the rest of his life whining about the unfairness…
the funny thing is..if he was busy competing in TRI's he would not be crying.



I can't wait to read Bassons' book

 

[Race Radio]

You don't need to go by what Armstrong says. We can go by what Tygart himself has said.

The problem with cycling is not the doping per se. It is the corrupt system run by UCI. Everyone is required to lie. Rules exist to present a pretty facade to the public while insiders operate in the shadows, doing whatever they feel is expedient, whether it is within the rules or not. The anti-doping insiders are now operating the same way, and because they feel their crusade is righteous, there are no limits on what they might do. The rules are again ignored.

What rules were ignored? The SOL had precedent. Not just in sport (Hellebuyck) but in most legal systems in the Western World. Independent auditors and WADA supported USADA's tolling of the SOL

But you knew this as it has been discussed to death here. No rules were ignored, except by lance and his co-conspirators

 

[lean mean &green]

You don't need to go by what Armstrong says. We can go by what Tygart himself has said.

The problem with cycling is not the doping per se. It is the corrupt system run by UCI. Everyone is required to lie. Rules exist to present a pretty facade to the public while insiders operate in the shadows, doing whatever they feel is expedient, whether it is within the rules or not. The anti-doping insiders are now operating the same way, and because they feel their crusade is righteous, there are no limits on what they might do. The rules are again ignored.

...cognitive distortion much?!?!

 

[BroDeal]

LA had his chance, where others sat down and assisted LA did not - yet you think he deserves the same as them? Every legal system I can think of works the same way - cop a plea, get a deal, fight it and you lose.

No. Every fair legal system works by punishing people according to the laws that existed at the time of the offense. It is a basic concept that assumes people can rationally decide whether they want to offend based on the potential punishment.

There was no WADA code in 1999. There was no provision in 1999 UCI rules for a win being stripped fifteen years after the fact. Tygart has produced an absurd situation where he is applying WADA rules to a time before WADA even existed and years before the UCI signed on to the WADA code (2004). What is more the WADA rules of 2004 are very different than what they are today. Funny enough, the punishment he gave the Garmin riders was the type of punishment that used to be given out in 1998 (a short ban to be served in the off season). That sort of chicanery was done away with not long after riders like Virenque were given their off-season slaps on the wrist.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. Every fair legal system works by punishing people according to the laws that existed at the time of the offense. It is a basic concept that assumes people can rationally decide whether they want to offend based on the potential punishment.

There was no WADA code in 1999. There was no provision in 1999 UCI rules for a win being stripped fifteen years after the fact. Tygart has produced an absurd situation where he is applying WADA rules to a time before WADA even existed and years before the UCI signed on to the WADA code (2004). What is more the WADA rules of 2004 are very different than what they are today. Funny enough, the punishment he gave the Garmin riders was the type of punishment that used to be given out in 1998 (a short ban to be served in the off season). That sort of chicanery was done away with not long after riders like Virenque were given their off-season slaps on the wrist.

Funny you mention Virenque - he was the first rider I thought of who was sanctioned even though there was no non-analytical finding.

Virenque too was hit before the WADA code was adopted in 2004 - how?
Easy, there were rules against doping set up by the UCI.
Which if you have read the reasoned decision were all applied and quoted.

 

[Race Radio]

No. Every fair legal system works by punishing people according to the laws that existed at the time of the offense. It is a basic concept that assumes people can rationally decide whether they want to offend based on the potential punishment.

There was no WADA code in 1999. There was no provision in 1999 UCI rules for a win being stripped fifteen years after the fact. Tygart has produced an absurd situation where he is applying WADA rules to a time before WADA even existed and years before the UCI signed on to the WADA code (2004). What is more the WADA rules of 2004 are very different than what they are today. Funny enough, the punishment he gave the Garmin riders was the type of punishment that used to be given out in 1998 (a short ban to be served in the off season). That sort of chicanery was done away with not long after riders like Virenque were given their off-season slaps on the wrist.

You know this has been addressed over and over and over, why pretend that it hasn't?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The anti-doping insiders are now operating the same way, and because they feel their crusade is righteous, there are no limits on what they might do. The rules are again ignored.

So, anti-doping is running roughshod over all those evil dopers. Animal Farm comes to life in Pro cycling.

Looking around for some facts to back this claim up, I checked 2013's measured climbing times. I checked the winner of the 2013 Vuelta and TdF. I checked the DS's running teams. Was I supposed to find the cleanest peloton ever? Because I didn't.

I found some changes at the UCI though.