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

[Dr. Maserati]

If you think I am casting Armstrong as a victim, you are mistaken. However you resolve the Brodeal / Race Radio alternative histories, the fact remains that Lance was the leader of the largest doping conspiracy so far, by far. Additionally, I don't think that the Andreus' story (whatever it is) impacts Armstrong's score on the Jerk scale at all. Even if it did, it wouldn't matter because Armstrong is astronomically, logarithmically, off the Jerk scale.

Race Radio has over the years woven an Andreu narrative for us. That narrative is consistent with the available attributable facts. Brodeal has also presented us with a narrative that is consistent with the available attributable facts.

I am skeptical of both narratives. The Brodeal narrative is a recasting of things Hincapie has said. Hincapie has a big stake in preserving his cycling reputation. He has a great financial interest in painting himself as 'just one of the boys' and not as a profoundly dishonest cheat. He's got his hotel, his clothing brand, and his cycling team at stake. Other than that, I can't see why it's not true.

The Race Radio narrative suffers much from it's presentation. A challenge to his version of the facts brings vulgarity ("clogging the toilet"), innuendo, loaded questions, and often an attack on the challenger's own motivations (or "agenda"). That inspires no confidence in his narrative. He doesn't offer any more sources for his narrative than Brodeal does for his. We must rely upon his implication that he is an 'insider.' Other than that, I can't see why it's not true.

On balance, I like Brodeal's narrative a little more than Race Radio's. The only reason is that it seems more consonant with my understanding of human nature. It does seem like Frankie was just one of the boys (domestiques). I don't favor the 'psychological' component of Brodeal's narrative.

It is interesting that you use the word 'narrative' - that suggests you want a story and one to match your agenda.

I do not remember RR ever claiming in seriousness that he was 'insider' - nor has he or needs to reveal his 'sources', in the same way that no-one has to believe him.

What has set RR apart - which upsets some here - is that very consistently he has been able to deliver information before it became available that was accurate.
Others have tried and failed.

 

[MarkvW]

It is interesting that you use the word 'narrative' - that suggests you want a story and one to match your agenda.

I do not remember RR ever claiming in seriousness that he was 'insider' - nor has he or needs to revealed his 'sources', in the same way that no-one has to believe him.

What has set RR apart - which upsets some here - is that very consistently he has been able to deliver information before it became available that was accurate.
Others have tried and failed.

I chose "narrative" to avoid being trolled for use of the word "fact."

I don't want to discuss RR's qualities as a poster. You obviously have faith in him/her. Good for you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I chose "narrative" to avoid being trolled for use of the word "fact."

Pointing out that you are often short on facts is not actually trolling you.

Writing a narrative that ignores facts could be viewed as trolling.

I don't want to discuss RR's qualities as a poster. You obviously have faith in him/her. Good for you.

Well, you do when you start a paragraph with...
"Race Radio has over the years woven an Andreu narrative for us..."

And absolutely - I have faith in RR because time and again what they suggest has happened or is quite near the "facts".
This does not mean they are always correct - but they are not deliberately setting out an agenda.

 

[Race Radio]

A challenge to his version of the facts brings vulgarity ("clogging the toilet"),

Who knew you would be so easily offended?

You have no problem with a poster smearing a member of this forum (Betsy) painting her as a seething, greedy, drive by jealously, btich, out to ruin people's careers. She is controlled by her alien overlords, The Lemonds.

Despite zero supporting evidence you accept this freshly invented narrative. While this acceptance may bring a smile to Lance's face don't expect others to be so swallow his nonsense so easily

 

[86TDFWinner]

It may not have been a sinister as this. My hunch is Frankie, like all of us, had bills to pay.

That's EXACTLY why he took the US Postal job.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I chose "narrative" to avoid being trolled for use of the word "fact."

I don't want to discuss RR's qualities as a poster. You obviously have faith in him/her. Good for you.

If you think pointing out the fact that you don't seem to understand the word "fact" is being "trolled." you don't understand the difference between "fact" and trolling...which I guess is self-proving. <-now that was a troll...

 

[BroDeal]

Brodeal's source on the matter has a very interesting view of the events that **miraculously** cast Wonderboy as some kind of victim. Armstrong as victim... Where have we seen that story used before? Where have we seen petty personal attacks used as the basis for being a victim?

Now you are using RR's favorite ploy, twisting words to meet preconceived expectations that support existing biases. People don't like to hear the Armstrong affair is more sordid and complex on the part of all sides instead of the Manichaeistic narrative promoted here. It is a simple view of the world favored by Americans. Systemic problems are blamed on individuals. Befuddlement ensues after the evildoer is removed and the the next in line, a product of the same environment, proves to be no different.

Everything Armstrong did has been recast to buttress the tale of a master manipulator. Take, for example, discussions at Motorola about EPO use. While Armstrong's position was solid evidence of his own drug use, it is a contortion to portray this as Armstrong pushing people into drug use. The talk at Motorola was not remarkable. As EPO use transitioned from a few individuals to entire teams, the same conversations that took place between Motorola riders happened at every team. The decisions to use EPO were not made by each rider cloistered with his only his own thoughts to guide him. They were made with input from teammates, staff, and friends in the peloton, all concerned for their jobs.

Armstrong is a realist. There were riders he used to be able knuckle down in the saddle and drop at will on small hills. As EPO spread, the same riders could cause him to red line on false flat as he struggled to hold their wheels. Since the drug was undetectable and the UCI had never shown an inclination to fight doping anyway, he instinctively knew this was the future. There was no stopping it.

The riders at Motorolo collectively decided to use EPO. More than just Armstrong argued for the realist view, and no one could make a convincing argument for how the team could survive without its use. In fact, one of the primary motivations that underlay the group decision for everyone to use during the 1995 Tour was quite mundane. Motorola was a comfortable, English speaking oasis in a European sport. Riders liked it there and were not enthused about moving to teams with a different culture if Motorola folded because of a lack of results. Armstrong himself was confident in his own ability to succeed if he was using the same tools as everyone else, but he wanted the team to stay together because of loyalty to his teammates even though by that time he considered himself a seasoned European pro and would likely be seeking a bigger contract from another team.

 

[Race Radio]

That's EXACTLY why he took the US Postal job.

Yup, especially as the job offers he had suddenly vanished after Johan talked with them

 

[Granville57]

What I am getting is that LA got an unfair ban in comparison to others for doping. I agree. Those Garmin boys got 0 ban till JV said a 6month ban looks better albeit over the winter.

This again.

It appears that BroDeal's little though experiment is blossoming quite well. As it turns out, embedded within his wording are Kabbalah-like messages that directly influence the subconscious, erasing one's memory banks in the process.

I wish someone had previously posted a reminder of exactly why Armstrong's ban was different than say...everyone else.

Oh wait...

FFS, this argument has been gaining WAY too much traction lately by people that should, quite frankly, know better. It's not like USADA didn't provide us all with the details behind their decision, ya' know a REASONED DECISION?

It's all right there. There is absolutely no need to employ short-term memory or selective reading when evaluating exactly what actions USADA took against Armstrong and why. IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE!
-----------------

USADA Reasoned Decision
Page 7

II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong was sanctioned include:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO,
blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.15
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, 
and/or cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity 
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.

-----------
Further clarification is provided later in the same document:
-----------

Page 146
VI. EVIDENCE OF ARMSTRONG’S EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

Article 2.8 of the World Anti-Doping Code includes as an anti-doping rule violation, “assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation.”

Additionally, proof that an athlete “engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation” can be grounds for increasing a sanction. Fraudulent concealment or other efforts to subvert the legal process, such as perjury or witness intimidation can also result in suspension or waiver of the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, in this section USADA discusses some of the evidence of efforts by Armstrong and his entourage to cover up rule violations, suppress the truth, obstruct or subvert the legal process and thereby encourage doping.
---------

The USADA document then provides the specifics behind this reasoning. It's all right there for everyone to read. No mystery. No behavior on the part of USADA that they are not fully entitled to. None.


Allow me to reiterate a few important and pertinent points in all of the above:

"Aggravating circumstances...justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction."

"Additionally, proof that an athlete “engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation” can be grounds for increasing a sanction. Fraudulent concealment or other efforts to subvert the legal process, such as perjury or witness intimidation can also result in suspension or waiver of the statute of limitations".







"...can be grounds for increasing a sanction."

 

[86TDFWinner]

Yup, especially as the job offers he had suddenly vanished after Johan talked with them

Yep. When that happens, and you need the bills paid, you do things you wouldn't normally do. Given that choice, many would've done the same thing. Can't fault Frankie for that.

 

[MarkvW]

Who knew you would be so easily offended?

You have no problem with a poster smearing a member of this forum (Betsy) painting her as a seething, greedy, drive by jealously, btich, out to ruin people's careers. She is controlled by her alien overlords, The Lemonds.

Despite zero supporting evidence you accept this freshly invented narrative. While this acceptance may bring a smile to Lance's face don't expect others to be so swallow his nonsense so easily

I'm not much interested in Betsy. She didn't do anything wrong. I do find it hard to distinguish Frankie from the other domestiques.

 

[Scott SoCal]

It is interesting that you use the word 'narrative' - that suggests you want a story and one to match your agenda.

I do not remember RR ever claiming in seriousness that he was 'insider' - nor has he or needs to reveal his 'sources', in the same way that no-one has to believe him.

What has set RR apart - which upsets some here - is that very consistently he has been able to deliver information before it became available that was accurate.
Others have tried and failed.

Hard to believe you'd talk about Hog like that.

 

[frenchfry]

Now you are using RR's favorite ploy, twisting words to meet preconceived expectations that support existing biases. People don't like to hear the Armstrong affair is more sordid and complex on the part of all sides instead of the Manichaeistic narrative promoted here. It is a simple view of the world favored by Americans. Systemic problems are blamed on individuals. Befuddlement ensues after the evildoer is removed and the the next in line, a product of the same environment, proves to be no different.

Everything Armstrong did has been recast to buttress the tale of a master manipulator. Take, for example, discussions at Motorola about EPO use. While Armstrong's position was solid evidence of his own drug use, it is a contortion to portray this as Armstrong pushing people into drug use. The talk at Motorola was not remarkable. As EPO use transitioned from a few individuals to entire teams, the same conversations that took place between Motorola riders happened at every team. The decisions to use EPO were not made by each rider cloistered with his only his own thoughts to guide him. They were made with input from teammates, staff, and friends in the peloton, all concerned for their jobs.

Armstrong is a realist. There were riders he used to be able knuckle down in the saddle and drop at will on small hills. As EPO spread, the same riders could cause him to red line on false flat as he struggled to hold their wheels. Since the drug was undetectable and the UCI had never shown an inclination to fight doping anyway, he instinctively knew this was the future. There was no stopping it.

The riders at Motorolo collectively decided to use EPO. More than just Armstrong argued for the realist view, and no one could make a convincing argument for how the team could survive without its use. In fact, one of the primary motivations that underlay the group decision for everyone to use during the 1995 Tour was quite mundane. Motorola was a comfortable, English speaking oasis in a European sport. Riders liked it there and were not enthused about moving to teams with a different culture if Motorola folded because of a lack of results. Armstrong himself was confident in his own ability to succeed if he was using the same tools as everyone else, but he wanted the team to stay together because of loyalty to his teammates even though by that time he considered himself a seasoned European pro and would likely be seeking a bigger contract from another team.

Nicely written, but quite honestly I didn't get past the first few lines.

I don't think anyone believes Armstrong was the only player in the sorrid doping history of cycling, so I don't see the point of attempting to show that he was just one of the boys. To be honest, I am not a hater because of the doping, it is all the other stuff.

For example, how does Mike Anderson fit into your pretty little narrative? Was he suntanning in the "comfortable oasis" and only "concerned about his job"? Did he benefit from the "loyalty to his teammates" and was only out for his self interest? Are we "befuddled" because certainly the "next in line" would certainly have fukced him over good if Armstrong hadn't?

Sorry, your narrative is revisionist crap. Fiction based on reality, but fiction nonetheless.

 

[MarkvW]

Pointing out that you are often short on facts is not actually trolling you.

Writing a narrative that ignores facts could be viewed as trolling.

Well, you do when you start a paragraph with...
"Race Radio has over the years woven an Andreu narrative for us..."

And absolutely - I have faith in RR because time and again what they suggest has happened or is quite near the "facts".
This does not mean they are always correct - but they are not deliberately setting out an agenda.

My use of the word "narrative" was not a response to anything you wrote. Brodeal challenged Race Radio's narrative with a narrative of his own. (I'm reading a narrative history, so the word seemed apt).

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two narratives. I lack your "faith" in Race Radio, though.

 

[Granville57]

Manichaeistic

This word doesn't usually appear in our free dictionary, but the definition from our premium Unabridged Dictionary is offered here on a limited basis.

Definition of MANICHAEAN
2: a believer in religious or philosophical dualism

Keep this up and I'll have to start a separate thread.

Armstrong himself was confident in his own ability to succeed if he was using the same tools as everyone else, but he wanted the team to stay together because of loyalty to his teammates...

Now that is cute!
Yes, that's usually the way Lance has been portrayed by every, single (oops, I meant not one) person who has even been associated with him. Loyalty to others. Talk about The Armstrong Lie!

BroDeal: Consistently the most entertaining poster on here. Beautiful work.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nicely written, but quite honestly I didn't get past the first few lines.

I don't think anyone believes Armstrong was the only player in the sorrid doping history of cycling, so I don't see the point of attempting to show that he was just one of the boys. To be honest, I am not a hater because of the doping, it is all the other stuff.

For example, how does Mike Anderson fit into your pretty little narrative? Was he suntanning in the "comfortable oasis" and only "concerned about his job"? Did he benefit from the "loyalty to his teammates" and was only out for his self interest? Are we "befuddled" because certainly the "next in line" would certainly have fukced him over good if Armstrong hadn't?

Sorry, your narrative is revisionist crap. Fiction based on reality, but fiction nonetheless.

Aw man - you missed the best part which was the closing paragraph.

Lance didn't get Motorola team mates to dope, no - but out of 'loyalty' to his teammates he went along with the "group decision" to dope, so the team could remain an "English speaking oasis in a European sport".
Great stuff.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nicely written, but quite honestly I didn't get past the first few lines.

I don't think anyone believes Armstrong was the only player in the sorrid doping history of cycling, so I don't see the point of attempting to show that he was just one of the boys. To be honest, I am not a hater because of the doping, it is all the other stuff.

For example, how does Mike Anderson fit into your pretty little narrative? Was he suntanning in the "comfortable oasis" and only "concerned about his job"? Did he benefit from the "loyalty to his teammates" and was only out for his self interest? Are we "befuddled" because certainly the "next in line" would certainly have fukced him over good if Armstrong hadn't?

Sorry, your narrative is revisionist crap. Fiction based on reality, but fiction nonetheless.

Sh!t in, sh!t out. SSDD

Great post.

 

[Granville57]

Aw man - you missed the best part which was the closing paragraph.

Lance didn't get Motorola team mates to dope, no - but out of 'loyalty' to his teammates...

Haha. I win. Beat you to it.

 

[Race Radio]

Aw man - you missed the best part which was the closing paragraph.

Lance didn't get Motorola team mates to dope, no - but out of 'loyalty' to his teammates he went along with the "group decision" to dope, so the team could remain an "English speaking oasis in a European sport".
Great stuff.

Yup, comical.

George and Stephen Swart must have been lying in their affidavits when they say their team leader was saying it was time to start using EPO

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not much interested in Betsy. She didn't do anything wrong.

Then why did you trumpet Bro's post? His target for most of it was Betsy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My use of the word "narrative" was not a response to anything you wrote. Brodeal challenged Race Radio's narrative with a narrative of his own. (I'm reading a narrative history, so the word seemed apt).

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two narratives.

That probably explains why you often miss the facts - Armstrong likes people like you, because he can pollute the well of information with nonsense.

I lack your "faith" in Race Radio, though.

Good, Im delighted to read that - that shows that he is usually correct.

 

[Netserk]

Yup, comical.

George and Stephen Swart must have been lying in their affidavits when they say their team leader was saying it was time to start using EPO

So you can show me a quote of that?

Yes George took what Armstrong said as to mean something, but Armstrong didn't say it (or at least George didn't say in his affidavit that he did so).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you can show me a quote of that?

Yes George took what Armstrong said as to mean something, but Armstrong didn't say it (or at least George didn't say in his affidavit that he did so).

Hincapies affidavit:

Swarts affidavit:

 

[Netserk]

Hincapies affidavit:

So you agree. Good.

 

[Race Radio]

So you can show me a quote of that?

Yes George took what Armstrong said as to mean something, but Armstrong didn't say it (or at least George didn't say in his affidavit that he did so).

George does not quote Lance's actual words, Word and George are not good friends. .....but he makes it clear that those words left George with the impression that Lance wanted to the team to take EPO.

t is possible Lance was talking about what flavor of gelato he would get after their ride.....but the far likelier possibility is that George was left with the understanding that Lance wanted the team to take EPO because that what thrust of the conversation.

Swart is more clear. He says that Lance stated strongly that if riders wanted to ride the Tour they needed to take EPO.