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

[Robert5091]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/oct/05/lance-armstrong-usps-lawsuit-government

Then we hit the elephant in the courtroom – another big fact Armstrong’s accusers don’t want aired in court: Everyone else was doing it. Indeed, LeMond worries that, even with advances in drug testing, the world’s top cyclists may still be doing it.

:surprised:

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/oct/05/lance-armstrong-usps-lawsuit-government

Then we hit the elephant in the courtroom – another big fact Armstrong’s accusers don’t want aired in court: Everyone else was doing it. Indeed, LeMond worries that, even with advances in drug testing, the world’s top cyclists may still be doing it.

:surprised:

Not sure how the 'everyone else was doing it' applies. Bit like when you get caught stealing and claim well everyone was doing it. Don't make stealing right.

Armstrong suddenly forgetting his denials and more denials and lies upon lies to cover up his doping and now he thinks hey, 'Everyone was doing it' is going to cut the grade. FRO!

Funny how he ran Bassons and Simeoni out of the sport for talking about doping, but now it is 'Everyone was doing it' and USPS should have known. Well anytime anyone mentioned doping to Armstrong didn't he run crying to his lawyers. Again Armstrong can FRO with this shite!

Still a grade A d!ckhead!

 

[deviant]

The article raises some good points, why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation and if the case goes against Armstrong then Floyd should not in any way profit, he's just as bad.

Ditto USP trying to claim damages when they profited massively during the Armstrong years...its two faced from all parties and a waste of eveyone's time.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The article raises some good points, why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation and if the case goes against Armstrong then Floyd should not in any way profit, he's just as bad.

Ditto USP trying to claim damages when they profited massively during the Armstrong years...its two faced from all parties and a waste of eveyone's time.

Why should a convicted doper like Armstrong hold onto his ill gotten gains as opposed to a convicted doper who was left desitute for his doping?

USPS profited massively? I doubt that. They may have got a lot of publicity, but it increased profits massively, got a link?

Did USPS not have a contract which claimed the team was not doping or cheating. So it could be argued breach of contract.

Landis will profit because he took the case. Others could have done the same, JV, Hincapie, Hamilton etc etc. I am not a huge fan of Landis but do think he deserves some compensation from Armstrong due to what Armstrong did to him.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

The article raises some good points, why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation and if the case goes against Armstrong then Floyd should not in any way profit, he's just as bad.

Ditto USP trying to claim damages when they profited massively during the Armstrong years...its two faced from all parties and a waste of eveyone's time.

Why should a convicted doper like Armstrong hold onto his ill gotten gains as opposed to a convicted doper who was left desitute for his doping?

USPS profited massively? I doubt that. They may have got a lot of publicity, but it increased profits massively, got a link?

Did USPS not have a contract which claimed the team was not doping or cheating. So it could be argued breach of contract.

Landis will profit because he took the case. Others could have done the same, JV, Hincapie, Hamilton etc etc. I am not a huge fan of Landis but do think he deserves some compensation from Armstrong due to what Armstrong did to him.

We likes us our snitches. Yessss, my precious. But without rewards our snitches keep quiet. We likes us our snitches voluble.

USPS was a criminal conspiracy. The only way you crack a conspiracy is with snitches. Floyd was just as bad a cheater as Lance, but hey we needs us our snitches--and why was Lance hanging out with Floyd anyway?

Pro cycling is filthy and the United States Postal Service jumped into that filth with both feet. It remains to be seen whether Lance will get away with his fraud.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

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

In today's Guardian:

It's time for the government to get off Lance Armstrong's back

I was thinking that I had read (somewhere) that someone had done the maths and found that Pharmstrong had received multiples of negative mentions in the press per each positive mention, concluding that the facts were at odds with the Uniballer's claim that on balance USPS had profited from their association. Does anyone else remember this? I searched this thread and couldn't find any mention.

 

[deviant]

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

US Postal Service earned more than $100m in global exposure by sponsoring Armstrong’s team, according to their own research

It's in the article.

By their own research they made good money from Armstrong, they have no business claiming damages from him.

If we're going down the road of retrospectively taking back 'ill gotten gains' from doped up cyclists let's also get hold of Pantanis estate and give it back to Mercatone Uno, let's get Riis and Ullrich in court and strip them of their assets to give back to the sponsors...it's a farce and should be left well alone...Floyd got busted and is angry he couldn't come back to USP, that's his problem, no team is obliged to take a doper back and blaming Armstrong smacks of Floyd still living in denial.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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

US Postal Service earned more than $100m in global exposure by sponsoring Armstrong’s team, according to their own research

It's in the article.

By their own research they made good money from Armstrong, they have no business claiming damages from him.

One does love a selective quote. Here's a better one, from the same article:

“The government may attempt to prove that the positive benefits of the sponsorship were reduced – or even eliminated altogether – by the negative publicity that accompanied the subsequent investigation and disclosure of Armstrong’s doping,” Cooper wrote in a February opinion

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Straw poll re the Guardian article: how many people think the author is arguing the government should get off Lance Armstrong's back and let him go free?

 

[Robert5091]

Re:

Straw poll re the Guardian article: how many people think the author is arguing the government should get off Lance Armstrong's back and let him go free?

How much did Lance pay Beau Dure for the article, is what I want to know :lol:

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

I quite agree with deviant. Better Pharmstrong should die a rich man, still the sport's senior statesman with an unblemished reputation and seven Tdf Titles to his credit, with Liggett and Sherwin's lips still pressed firmly against his toches, rather than FLandis should profit even a single centime for his role in the Uniballer's downfall. Furthermore, no one other than nuns and monks should be allowed to give witness in any criminal or legal proceeding and only then after successfully passing urine analysis, polygraph testing, and water boarding.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

I quite agree with deviant. Better Pharmstrong should die a rich man, still the sport's senior statesman with an unblemished reputation and seven Tdf Titles to his credit, with Liggett and Sherwin's lips still pressed firmly against his toches, rather than FLandis should profit even a single centime for his role in the Uniballer's downfall. Furthermore, no one other than nuns and monks should be allowed to give witness in any criminal or legal proceeding and only then after successfully passing urine analysis, polygraph testing, and water boarding.

Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Re: Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

I quite agree with deviant. Better Pharmstrong should die a rich man, still the sport's senior statesman with an unblemished reputation and seven Tdf Titles to his credit, with Liggett and Sherwin's lips still pressed firmly against his toches, rather than FLandis should profit even a single centime for his role in the Uniballer's downfall. Furthermore, no one other than nuns and monks should be allowed to give witness in any criminal or legal proceeding and only then after successfully passing urine analysis, polygraph testing, and water boarding.

Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

You're kidding, right? Heroes? Good golly. Stepanova got caught doping, and when she didn't get her ban erased and lost money, she started talking. That individual is not 'anti-doping,' at all. Rodchenkov spent time in a mental institution, tried to commit suicide, and blamed his wife. Then he moved to the US, established an address there, and came back to Russia to manipulate tests of athletes that had nothing do with him. The guy is more creepy than Grigory Rasputin. These people should not go in the same sentence with 'anti-doping.' I am sorry that you think they should.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

You're kidding, right? Heroes? Good golly. Stepanova got caught doping, and when she didn't get her ban erased and lost money, she started talking. That individual is not 'anti-doping,' at all. Rodchenkov spent time in a mental institution, tried to commit suicide, and blamed his wife. Then he moved to the US, established an address there, and came back to Russia to manipulate tests of athletes that had nothing do with him. The guy is more creepy than Grigory Rasputin. These people should not go in the same sentence with 'anti-doping.' I am sorry that you think they should.

Then you’ll be pleased to know that David Walsh is writing a book with both of them

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation

It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

You're kidding, right? Heroes? Good golly. Stepanova got caught doping, and when she didn't get her ban erased and lost money, she started talking. That individual is not 'anti-doping,' at all. Rodchenkov spent time in a mental institution, tried to commit suicide, and blamed his wife. Then he moved to the US, established an address there, and came back to Russia to manipulate tests of athletes that had nothing do with him. The guy is more creepy than Grigory Rasputin. These people should not go in the same sentence with 'anti-doping.' I am sorry that you think they should.

Then you’ll be pleased to know that David Walsh is writing a book with both of them

Well I am not surprised, David Walsh is a hypocrite, so it fits quite nicely. Protects Sky and British sports stars in general, goes after Joe Foreigner. Professional sport just keeps getting more smelly and corrupt.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You're kidding, right?

I love it when people instinctively recognise a joke but still go off on one.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.

100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.

100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.

Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.

100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.

Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

Bunch of anorexic guys riding around on mopeds isn't exactly murder.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

[quote="
Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.

100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.

Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

Bunch of anorexic guys riding around on mopeds isn't exactly murder.

Far worse ... judging by 1.5 million look-ins and 14.5K comments.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Far worse ... judging by 1.5 million look-ins and 14.5K comments.

Ten people hitting refresh ten times after each making a less than one post a day over five years...

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Far worse ... judging by 1.5 million look-ins and 14.5K comments.

Ten people hitting refresh ten times after each making a less than one post a day over five years...

Well, yeah! Ten times worse!