Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement)

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So USAC had no budget or doctors, yet the cyclists were all (or a lot of them) doping? Did the cyclists just go and buy the drugs themselves? Did the coaches? If there was doping (and their likely was) on that team, then who provided the material? Who paid for it? I have a hard time believing that everyone was poor and didn't have the resources.
You add a lot of assumptions to what I'd printed.
Generally the cyclists were given the general information and the opinion from coaching staff that their competition in Europe, Central/South America all used some form of recovery "aids". Any specific recommendations were given one on one to sourcing. It would rely on the rider to fund their activity. It involved a small percentage of team members as our riders would confirm.
Separately; there is the Greg Strock/Erik Kaiter case where they were actually given steriods, etc. without their knowledge while at 1990 Worlds by the staff. It is dry reading but the case files are pretty direct and demonstrates that USAC would go to those lengths if need be. This is also several years after Thom Weisel/Montgomery Securities started his cycling team and was closely tied to USAC. He recruited from the USAC pool for most of his early riders and continued with his funding into the 2000s for development programs. His firm also helped underwrite the IPO of a struggling biotech firm....Amgen.
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
134
1,230
You add a lot of assumptions to what I'd printed.
Generally the cyclists were given the general information and the opinion from coaching staff that their competition in Europe, Central/South America all used some form of recovery "aids". Any specific recommendations were given one on one to sourcing. It would rely on the rider to fund their activity. It involved a small percentage of team members as our riders would confirm.
Separately; there is the Greg Strock/Erik Kaiter case where they were actually given steriods, etc. without their knowledge while at 1990 Worlds by the staff. It is dry reading but the case files are pretty direct and demonstrates that USAC would go to those lengths if need be. This is also several years after Thom Weisel/Montgomery Securities started his cycling team and was closely tied to USAC. He recruited from the USAC pool for most of his early riders and continued with his funding into the 2000s for development programs. His firm also helped underwrite the IPO of a struggling biotech firm....Amgen.
You hit a lot of nails squarely on the head. The biggest travesty of the whole saga is the fact Thom hasn't been exposed for the POS he was and still is.
 
Reactions: 86TDFWinner
I lol when the director asked Wonderboy if he's still relevant & Wonderboy says" Of course I'm still relevant". Been saying FOR YEARS here that Wonderboy tries so hard to remain relevant, that he's desperare to remain in the spotlight,
And yet despite his supposed irrelevance, here you are on Part 4 of the latest of god knows how many threads, nearly a decade since he last raced a bike, discussing a three hour documentary. You keep him relevant
 
And yet despite his supposed irrelevance, here you are on Part 4 of the latest of god knows how many threads, nearly a decade since he last raced a bike, discussing a three hour documentary. You keep him relevant
While that's the case; most cycling fans would still prefer the non-revised versions of history. Debatable as they are. Joe Rogan just signed a $100m podcast deal. Weird sh*t can happen if only one side of a story is told.
 
Reactions: GVFTA
And yet despite his supposed irrelevance, here you are on Part 4 of the latest of god knows how many threads, nearly a decade since he last raced a bike, discussing a three hour documentary. You keep him relevant
No, ESPN has by interviewing him and giving him a platform to try and whitewash the past.

And it's working too, look at some of the comments on the article on the CN front page. You'd think every rider was buying the UCI a Sysmex and attempting to destroy people's livelihoods.
 
Reactions: 86TDFWinner

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
134
1,230
No, ESPN has by interviewing him and giving him a platform to try and whitewash the past.

And it's working too, look at some of the comments on the article on the CN front page. You'd think every rider was buying the UCI a Sysmex and attempting to destroy people's livelihoods.
Who was funding and encouraging his rhetoric and actions at the time? That's the real story.
 
Reactions: 86TDFWinner
While that's the case; most cycling fans would still prefer the non-revised versions of history. Debatable as they are.
Most cycling fans don't think about Armstrong much. He's long gone. But people like you keep going back.


No, ESPN has by interviewing him and giving him a platform to try and whitewash the past.

And it's working too, look at some of the comments on the article on the CN front page. You'd think every rider was buying the UCI a Sysmex and attempting to destroy people's livelihoods.
And they give him a platform because you show there's a market for it by constantly returning him to him, desparately hoping so minutae of the story you've been obsessing about but no-one gives a toss about will be confirmed

Most cycling fans' view of Armstrong is he doped, as most did at the time, he got caught and lost his wins. End of.
 
Reactions: yaco

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
134
1,230
Most cycling fans don't think about Armstrong much. He's long gone. But people like you keep going back.




And they give him a platform because you show there's a market for it by constantly returning him to him, desparately hoping so minutae of the story you've been obsessing about but no-one gives a toss about will be confirmed

Most cycling fans' view of Armstrong is he doped, as most did at the time, he got caught and lost his wins. End of.
You obviously have no clue as to the influence that was then present, having influence now. And yes, I knew Thom Weasel in 1990 when I was junior. Lance wasn't old enough or smart enough to have concocted the scam that is still pro cycling.
 
Reactions: 86TDFWinner
Most cycling fans don't think about Armstrong much. He's long gone. But people like you keep going back.




And they give him a platform because you show there's a market for it by constantly returning him to him, desparately hoping so minutae of the story you've been obsessing about but no-one gives a toss about will be confirmed

Most cycling fans' view of Armstrong is he doped, as most did at the time, he got caught and lost his wins. End of.
"People like me". You don't know me or how much impact he had on friends and people that invested much time in the sport of cycling. This is a cycling forum and if he wants to appear on NBCSN as commentator, ESPN as a historical figure or host podcasts he is fair game for rebuttal. Why wouldn't we knowing he historically would seek to profit from his past any way he can.
If we go back it's to avoid the mistakes of the past. If he'd go away....it would be End of.
 
"People like me". You don't know me or how much impact he had on friends and people that invested much time in the sport of cycling. This is a cycling forum and if he wants to appear on NBCSN as commentator, ESPN as a historical figure or host podcasts he is fair game for rebuttal. Why wouldn't we knowing he historically would seek to profit from his past any way he can.
If we go back it's to avoid the mistakes of the past. If he'd go away....it would be End of.
Hey @Oldermanish, do you think you could cut it out with the funky 90s' font colouring? It's giving me a migraine.
 
Separately; there is the Greg Strock/Erik Kaiter case where they were actually given steriods, etc. without their knowledge while at 1990 Worlds by the staff. It is dry reading
They were discussed in a book, I think it was LA Confidentiel? I remember reading about them, the shock when it dawned on them that they weren't given what they thought, what they were told, they had been given. This is E. Germany-level stuff.

The biggest travesty of the whole saga is the fact Thom hasn't been exposed for the POS he was and still is.
There's a story I'd like to read. Bruyneel must be forever thinking, why me and not him?

And they give him a platform because you show there's a market for it by constantly returning him to him,
He's become an interesting historical figure, and history always maintains the relevance of the bad guys. It's not as though he's getting rich from people making a documentary about him.
 
Reactions: 86TDFWinner
Most cycling fans don't think about Armstrong much. He's long gone. But people like you keep going back.




And they give him a platform because you show there's a market for it by constantly returning him to him, desparately hoping so minutae of the story you've been obsessing about but no-one gives a toss about will be confirmed

Most cycling fans' view of Armstrong is he doped, as most did at the time, he got caught and lost his wins. End of.
I agree with your last paragraph but that's it.

I have precisely zero interest in watching an attempted whitewash, along with many other fans of the sport.

What I do have an interest in is calling out those who believe the delusion Armstrong was "doing the same things everyone else was".
 
You obviously have no clue as to the influence that was then present, having influence now. And yes, I knew Thom Weasel in 1990 when I was junior. Lance wasn't old enough or smart enough to have concocted the scam that is still pro cycling.
Mr. (the) Weasel is in the US Ski Hall of Fame after being a board member for some time. His Hall of Fame tribute mentions all of his roots in sports but only quickly mentions his USAC Master's involvement in cycling. The even include his photo with his coach, Eddie B.
His ability to ascend to the USSki board most likely gave him some roadmap to his takeover of USAC. Why hasn't he been more closely scrutinized with his cycling power grab? Because his net worth starts with a $B, for one.
 
I always thought his Worlds win had a stench about it. Still the youngest winner ever I think.
I dunno - from junior days he always had an incredible one day/classics talent. And in the same breath, was always a shitty tt'er and a very, very long way from being able to compete on long climbs. So, doping or not, his worlds win doesn't stink for me. It smells close enough to reality.
 
I dunno - from junior days he always had an incredible one day/classics talent. And in the same breath, was always a shitty tt'er and a very, very long way from being able to compete on long climbs. So, doping or not, his worlds win doesn't stink for me. It smells close enough to reality.
Maybe I guess it's easy to think the worst of some people without hard evidence. But with so many different versions of the truth so far from Armstrong himself it's hard to know what to think with his early career. Obviously he already had the engine as a triathlete.
 
Just finished watching the last two episodes of the Lance documentary. Not really sure what the directory wanted to achieve. You're not getting 'the truth' from Lance. EVER.

The story she should have told was the last five minutes of the documentary. The story of Armstrong, Ullrich and Pantani and why some dopers are allowed back in and others are not. It's a much more interesting question. It's a more uncomfortable one. It's a messy one and not about the riders but the caste system of cycling.
 
It's also in Walsh's other version of his half of LA Confidentiel, From Lance to Landis.
There is naturally a more detailed look into what less was known about Lance in 2004 + some extra material in the LA Confidentiel not finding its way into the later Walsh - book, e.g. more Watt analysis + generally more data (e.g. Armstrong's Hcts) etc. Actually I can't recall Antoine Vayer being mentioned in the FLTL at all except perhaps somewhere in passing.
 
Reactions: 86TDFWinner
The story she should have told was the last five minutes of the documentary.
Why? That's not what she does, not really. She makes films about people. Bernard Tapie, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams. She's interested in getting under the skin of the person. That's what interests her.

She's not a sports fan, Armstrong barely feaured on her radar until Alex Gibney's film came along and even only then cause she was mates with Gibney. She's a people person, she likes to analyse people and show what makes them tick, and this is a film about a person, not about doping.

In the game of show and tell, she prefers to show, not tell. She's not preaching, she's revealing. This isn't investigative journalism. This is story telling.

We've had how many post-Fall LA flicks already? Gibney, Holmes, Frears, God knows how many TV attempts, and they've all - with very limited success - told the one story: doping. Is there anything that can be added to them today? Clearly there's more than shold be added but, right now, is there more that can be added? Ullrich's not talking. Who around Pantani is ready to talk, to actually talk and not just perpetuate a myth? You've seen Zenovich's film, do you think McQuaid is ready to bare his breast? Omertà lives on, so why waste another 90 minutes trying to tell a story that can't yet be told?

This wasn't The Last Dance. This wasn't Slaying the Badger. This wasn't a sports film. This was a film about a guy who used to be a sportsman.
 
Just finished watching the last two episodes of the Lance documentary. Not really sure what the directory wanted to achieve. You're not getting 'the truth' from Lance. EVER.

The story she should have told was the last five minutes of the documentary. The story of Armstrong, Ullrich and Pantani and why some dopers are allowed back in and others are not. It's a much more interesting question. It's a more uncomfortable one. It's a messy one and not about the riders but the caste system of cycling.
Strange documentary, as a personality Armstrong is at best awkward, odd and not very likeable. Good at holding grudges and that seemed more sincere than his apologies ! I almost laughed out loud when he said everything in his first book was true except for the doping part.............I have reached my Lance limit. No more for me.
 
Strange documentary, as a personality Armstrong is at best awkward, odd and not very likeable. Good at holding grudges and that seemed more sincere than his apologies ! I almost laughed out loud when he said everything in his first book was true except for the doping part.............I have reached my Lance limit. No more for me.
Almost! I did laugh out loud. Still trying to control the narrative. Did you all see where someone was saying he knew about random comments on message boards? I got some satisfaction knowing he was monitoring all the spot on commentary that happened here.

I did like how one of the cancer survivors talked about the tangible results of Livestrong's work WRT sterility following cancer treatment, it gave me an appreciation for "cancer awareness" that I had certainly been lacking. That woman having 4 kids she would never have had without knowing about the sterility issues from chemo...that's a lot of good coming out of Livestrong's efforts and Lance's transparency around own chemo experiences. As are all humans, he's a complex mix of good and bad. He's still delusional if he thinks there's no difference between what he did (sued people, ruined lives) and what the others did. He's got an amazing ability to admit some stuff and totally be in denial about other things. Always fighting.

I enjoyed the documentary. A good wrap. By the way, his fiancée seems super nice. I really like her. Wonder how she copes with a guy like that who makes everything about himself.
 
Strange documentary.
Hi Lance (I guess he reads everything)

I think you encapsulated it perfectly. The thing was strange. As someone said earlier, that's how she covers her subjects.

If she was searching for "The Truth" A question, I would have liked her to ask the riders, the DS and journalist is do you think Lance won the 7 Tours? Get them to really expand on their answer.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY