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

[Race Radio]

'Let Lance Armstrong race Kona', says Ironman legend Dave Scott

Very misleading headline.

Scott is saying it WOULD have been good if Lance had raced Kona. Past tense, he is referring to the time prior to the Reasoned decision.

He is not saying to let him race now.

 

[Race Radio]

So to recap....
It's potentially a good book, as long as it's only Armstrong that gets exposed?

Why does it not surprise me that you would be supportive of unsourced smearing of someone who questioned the myth?

 

[andy1234]

Why does it not surprise me that you would be supportive of unsourced smearing of someone who questioned the myth?

Why does it not surprise me, that you take any rebuttal from the anti Armstrong camp, at face value?
If they say its false. it simply must be false.

And my oh my , what would everyone do, without your constant commentary?
Make their own mind up? God forbid.....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why does it not surprise me, that you take any rebuttal from the anti Armstrong camp, at face value?
If they say its false. it simply must be false.

And my oh my , what would everyone do, without your constant commentary?
Make their own mind up? God forbid.....

Usually because it has shown to be correct.
It is not a bad default position actually - obviously that does not mean it should be taken at face value.

Do you want to actually read the book and find something to discuss, or do you want to get the rebuttals of the apparent rebuttals out now?

 

[krebs303]

Very misleading headline.

Scott is saying it WOULD have been good if Lance had raced Kona. Past tense, he is referring to the time prior to the Reasoned decision.

He is not saying to let him race now.

"If you look at prize money in this sport it still pales in comparison to the other ones, and the athletes work darn hard. So I think having Lance in there, people are always going to say, 'Was he racing clean when he was doing triathlons'. I don't know, that has not come up, but I'm sure he would be tested and retested if he had that opportunity to race, so I think let him race."

 

[Race Radio]

"If you look at prize money in this sport it still pales in comparison to the other ones, and the athletes work darn hard. So I think having Lance in there, people are always going to say, 'Was he racing clean when he was doing triathlons'. I don't know, that has not come up, but I'm sure he would be tested and retested if he had that opportunity to race, so I think let him race."

Oh, I missed that part. I was focused on this

it would have been a great thing for the sport to have his notoriety

Scott is clueless. Having Lance at your race is not good for your sport.

 

[Race Radio]

Why does it not surprise me, that you take any rebuttal from the anti Armstrong camp, at face value?
If they say its false. it simply must be false.

And my oh my , what would everyone do, without your constant commentary?
Make their own mind up? God forbid.....

Since when is Scott McKinley in a "Camp"? Beyond the fact that both riders deny it and neither were asked about it by the author it is absurd to think that Frankie is going to have the authority to roll up during a race and offer $50,000. If you believe that fairy tail then you don't know the sport

 

[andy1234]

Since when is Scott McKinley in a "Camp"? Beyond the fact that both riders deny it and neither were asked about it by the author it is absurd to think that Frankie is going to have the authority to roll up during a race and offer $50,000. If you believe that fairy tail then you don't know the sport

Frankie probably did whatever he was told. That's all the authority he would need.

Of course doing stuff like that, given subsequent events, would definitely be best kept under wraps. Activity like that just doesn't fit in with the good guy, bad guy scenario.

And as far as fairy tails go, you're kidding right? You think Armstrong was the first and only shark in the water? please....

 

[Race Radio]

Frankie probably did whatever he was told. That's all the authority he would need.

Of course doing stuff like that, given subsequent events, would definitely be best kept under wraps. Activity like that just doesn't fit in with the good guy, bad guy scenario.

And as far as fairy tails go, you're kidding right? You think Armstrong was the first and only shark in the water? please....

You didn't read my post did you?

 

[andy1234]

You didn't read my post did you?

What, that both riders deny it?
That Frankie couldn't have done it , because he didn't have the authority?

Forgive me for applying the same filter of cyncism, to both sides of the table.

 

[MarkvW]

What, that both riders deny it?
That Frankie couldn't have done it , because he didn't have the authority?

Forgive me for applying the same filter of cyncism, to both sides of the table.

Please don't "smear" Frankie--even with the truth. We've been through enough of that already.

 

[mewmewmew13]

"If you look at prize money in this sport it still pales in comparison to the other ones, and the athletes work darn hard. So I think having Lance in there, people are always going to say, 'Was he racing clean when he was doing triathlons'. I don't know, that has not come up, but I'm sure he would be tested and retested if he had that opportunity to race, so I think let him race."

Before his ban when he raced they tested participants but not the top three..which included Lance at one race..if I remember correctly??
conveniently NOT tested is my hit on that one..

but as we all know here even after 500 500 tests he 'never' tested pos….

 

[frenchfry]

'Let Lance Armstrong race Kona', says Ironman legend Dave Scott

Money and attention are indeed the values we should worship.

All the rest is really just background noise.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Please don't "smear" Frankie--even with the truth. We've been through enough of that already.

I thought the book wasn't out yet, what did it say?

So it is truthful that Frankie offered $50,000 to someone else to let Lance win?

 

[MarkvW]

I thought the book wasn't out yet, what did it say?

So it is truthful that Frankie offered $50,000 to someone else to let Lance win?

Multiple choice: If it's in the book it (a) must be true; (b) must not be true; (c) might be true; (d) might not be true; (e) is just words.

 

[Race Radio]

Please don't "smear" Frankie--even with the truth. We've been through enough of that already.

So both guys say it did not happen, the claim itself is absurd given the size of the offer and their stature, The author did not talk to the principles,.....but you think it is true because Lance says it is?..........because Lance is so credible?

Yeah, that makes sense

 

[MarkvW]

...but you think it is true because Lance says it is?..........because Lance is so credible?

I don't think it credible.
I don't think it not credible.
I have insufficient trustworthy information to form an opinion of its credibility.

Your (quoted) statement is false.

To anyone else who is reading, this is a classic example of a "loaded question." On its face it purports to be a question, but it carries within it an implicit statement of fact. Like ". . . but you think that beating your wife is okay because Lance says it is?......because Lance is so credible?"

 

[andy1234]

So both guys say it did not happen, the claim itself is absurd given the size of the offer and their stature, The author did not talk to the principles,.....but you think it is true because Lance says it is?..........because Lance is so credible?

Yeah, that makes sense

Yeah it's absurd to think that Frankie acted on behalf of Armstrong, to approach another rider.
Are you saying that the size of the offer somehow precludes Frankie from doing this? I'm fairly certain Armstrong wouldn't have asked Frankie to foot the bill

I guess Frankie would have no reason to deny being involved in an insurance fraud?
I can see why you thought "One portion raised a real concern"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Multiple choice: If it's in the book it (a) must be true; (b) must not be true; (c) might be true; (d) might not be true; (e) is just words.

But you chose A - why?

For me C looks the option at first glance.
But as the race was only the 2nd in the series it seems a lot to gamble and that Phil Anderson was Motorolas road captain at the time.

 

[PosterBill]

Some of the discussion highlights what sucks about the commentary of cycling. For whatever reason we have been eternally stuck with buddy journalism. Is there anybody left that gives truly independent commentary? I have long followed race radio on twitter and really enjoyed his insight but he seems to have a little sally Jenkins creeping in with Frankie Andreau. When you get chummy you get soft and biased. But this is turning into a dead horse from what I have read on here lately...good luck

 

[MarkvW]

But you chose A - why?

For me C looks the option at first glance.
But as the race was only the 2nd in the series it seems a lot to gamble and that Phil Anderson was Motorolas road captain at the time.

You must have missed my post. I don't have an opinion yet.

 

[MarkvW]

Some of the discussion highlights what sucks about the commentary of cycling. For whatever reason we have been eternally stuck with buddy journalism. Is there anybody left that gives truly independent commentary? I have long followed race radio on twitter and really enjoyed his insight but he seems to have a little sally Jenkins creeping in with Frankie Andreau. When you get chummy you get soft and biased. But this is turning into a dead horse from what I have read on here lately...good luck

I have hopes for Ms. Macur's book. She's written level-headed stories about the whole USPS saga for the NYT.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You must have missed my post. I don't have an opinion yet.

Yes you did....

Please don't "smear" Frankie--even with the truth. We've been through enough of that already.

Thats what you wrote, thats why RRs question was not loaded, but was a direct result of the above.

Now, you can of course change your position or clarify it as you attempted to do (when queried), but when you write the above you should expect it to be viewed as it was.

 

[MarkvW]

Yes you did....


Thats what you wrote, thats why RRs question was not loaded, but was a direct result of the above.

Now, you can of course change your position or clarify it as you attempted to do (when queried), but when you write the above you should expect it to be viewed as it was.

You're vortexing me about my own opinion? Gosh, Maserati.

My comment was a reference to the previous discussion about the "smearing" of Frankie by George, with George acting as Lance Armstrong's puppet. Some of the stuff George has said about Frankie is true and some of the stuff that George has said about Frankie is false. In the previous discussion, all of it (both truth and falsity) was described as a "smear."

I wasn't implying that all of the "smearing" was false, and I wasn't implying that all of the "smearing" was true. I was implying shades of gray and a mixture of true and false. We have lots of misunderstandings because you are an extremely concrete, black and white, binary reasoner and I am not.

But it's all good.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're vortexing me about my own opinion? Gosh, Maserati.

My comment was a reference to the previous discussion about the "smearing" of Frankie by George, with George acting as Lance Armstrong's puppet. Some of the stuff George has said about Frankie is true and some of the stuff that George has said about Frankie is false. In the previous discussion, all of it (both truth and falsity) was described as a "smear."

I wasn't implying that all of the "smearing" was false, and I wasn't implying that all of the "smearing" was true. I was implying shades of gray and a mixture of true and false. We have lots of misunderstandings because you are an extremely concrete, black and white, binary reasoner and I am not.

But it's all good.

I am most definitely not - although it may explain why you think there are 'misunderstandings'.

You are entitled to your opinion - and I am entitled to query it, as you are mine, if you think that is vortexing, then maybe you should vortex more.