I’m unclear on what you say has to do with the super responder myth. Even those arguing it out clinically are already fuzzy on details from the moment.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Wow, you really like playing the long odds, don't you? (nb: sarcasm font needed)
Ok, I'll bite: let's see the evidence for the millions paid to hide all the positives. I know it's an essential part of the cathecism for some, but the actual proof for the millions is ... what? The $25,000 (2002) and $100,000 (2005) we know the UCI received? That's ... doing the math here ... I make it ... substantially short of "millions".
It's odd how the USADA reasoned decision didn't mention these millions paid to hide all the positives, isn't it? Nor does the CIRC report mention them, for that matter.
Are we going with the story told by the mechanic of the bazillions paid personally to Hein Verbruggen to cover up the 1999 positive with a backdated medical note? Can anyone explain to me how a relatively easy positive to cover up cost bazillions, but the Tour de Suisse tests only cost $25k and the Dauphiné ones $100k? Was there a great depression in doping cover-up costs that drove the price down? Was the market flooded with cheap Chinese and Korean imports, is that it?
Anyone know how much Ty had to pay to cover up that "positive" he got hauled into Aigle about? Millions, was it? Funny he forgot to mention that in his book, even as the truth was setting him free...
Claims of "overwhelming proof" need to be backed up with ... well, any proof would be a good starting point.
There are Armstrong fanboys around here, who cant go all-in with their fanboyism openly anymore after all that has been revealed but they are trying to defend what is left. You can see it from their reactions on here how they still passionately love but won't admit to it (just saw it in the other LA thread few days ago). Then there are haters who are trying to take exactly also that away. You can argue how much you want but you will never know how good of a responder LA was. This discussion will always go in circles.
Lance was prepping for the TTT in Barcelona games which included the Panam Games runup. He was firmly working with Eddie B and under Weisel's added "support". The combination of roids and transfusions were available.
Motorola had the full kit for the Atlanta preparation as well. How well they were applied is between Lance and those providing the stuff. When Big Mig caught him in the Tour TT that could have been the wake up call to move to another coach.
You have to love the certainty of those who live in a black and white world. If you're not a hater you're a fanboy. If only they'd take their blinkers off they might be able to read and even understand what's really being defended.
Have any proof he didnt pay millions to hide any positives?
Do you have anything stating he didn't dope, besides what your dog told you?
Which is what exactly? That people here are okay with him being a doper, after a decade of denial?
Or something else you're "defending"?
How do you get "he didn't dope" from anything anyone's posted here?
It's really not that hard or earth-shaking: the Andreus, Hamilton, etc reported what they heard and saw. The bribes? None of the witnesses saw them. Their source was Armstrong himself, and if he misremembered or misrepresented the facts, well, you can't blame the folks who gave testimony, but you can't take their testimony as gospel either when we have other data that contradicts their statements.
The TdS test was not an actual positive as per the rules. We KNOW this. And we know how much he "donated". Armstrong either believed it was (the likely scenario IMO), or he decided to misrepresent the whole thing for some cred.
"Have any proof that he didn't do this or that" is an an absurd question to pose. You can't prove a negative. It's equally absurd to say there's "overwhelming proof" of something for which there is no proof. Cop to it instead of throwing random jabs at other folks.
That was my point. FMK asked where i got the "overwhelming proof" i mentioned earlier and you pretty much answered it. How would anyone think he didnt dope with all the evidence out there?
Your original statement was that "there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives". Acknowledging that Armstrong doped doesn't address at all the "extremely high levels" or "paid millions" claims of which the first one is debatable (there was nothing unusual in his known arsenal vs. the other junkies of his era) and there appears to exist zero proof for these bribes of millions to the UCI.
To acknowledge that semi-clean Armstrong of 1994-95 had to take the full doping program in order to compete against the other dopers also doesn't address at all the question how he would've performed in a clean peloton.
To acknowledge that semi-clean Armstrong of 1994-95 had to take the full doping program in order to compete against the other dopers also doesn't address at all the question how he would've performed in a clean peloton.
Are you saying 100% you dont believe that he paid millions to hide any positives he had, or there was no overwhelming evidence that he didn't dope at extremely high levels? Or that he ran "the most sophisticated doping program in all of american sports? Do tell
Seems Wonderboy still has loyal fans?
Seems kind of odd he was more than willing to pay ANYONE "$300k to say they saw LeMond dope"(which no one came forward to accept by the way), and he wouldn't pay millions to hide his lies for over a decade? Lol. Believe what you want, like him if you choose, makes no difference to me. I'll continue coming here & posting the hilarious, narccissistic info from anything that guy does.
I am not 100 % certain about anything Armstrong-related and I have serious issues about whether he has told the whole truth about his PED-program. But to answer your three questions:
It is interesting about that $300.000 offer that nobody of these abundant "anyone" Armstrong was willing to pay the money has come forward to back up the EPO-claim by LeMond.
To summarise my position and interest in the case: I "like" Armstrong in the same manner as someone "likes" the commandants of the Majdanek extermination camp if he/she points out to someone that the initial and widely circulated body toll of 1.38 million is wrong and too high and the current estimate is around 78.000 death people.
- As far as I know there is no evidence of him paing "millions to hide any positives" if you don't count him paying millions to the notorious doping-expert/prominent coach Michele Ferrari for assistance in his PED/training-program.
- It is everyone to judge for themselves at how "extremely high levels" Armstrong was in his PED use, but there is no method or product used only by Armstrong known even after the affidavits and other material relating to his case.
- (see above). The USPS/Discovery program was apparently sophisticated because it was risk averse as none of his former teammates left the team in a body bag nor were the practically any doping positives inside his team.
It is interesting about that $300.000 offer that nobody of these abundant "anyone" Armstrong was willing to pay the money has come forward to back up the EPO-claim by LeMond.
To summarise my position and interest in the case: I "like" Armstrong in the same manner as someone "likes" the commandants of the Majdanek extermination camp if he/she points out to someone that the initial and widely circulated body toll of 1.38 million is wrong and too high and the current estimate is around 78.000 death people.
Here's your messiah talking about how Jim Ochowicz "paid million(s)to have them lose all three races in favor of Wonderboy".
So it stands to reason that Wonderboy MOST CERTAINLY paid millions to hide his"OVERWHELMING doping use".
road.cc
I've also spoken to Betsy and Frankie Andreu about this topic & both laughed & said" definitely". He had $200 million + reasons to gain from doing so.
How sad that regardless of what past/former teammates, the reasoned decision & reporters have all said & provided some sort of credible proof stating much of what i said above is 100% true, there are still folks who disbelieve & ball wash him.
Believe what you think, makes no difference to me.
So it stands to reason that Wonderboy MOST CERTAINLY paid millions to hide his"OVERWHELMING doping use".
Jim Ochowicz arranged bribe to fix $1 million race claims Lance Armstrong
Disgraced cyclist says ex-Motorola manager, now at BMC Racing, arranged to pay off rivals
I've also spoken to Betsy and Frankie Andreu about this topic & both laughed & said" definitely". He had $200 million + reasons to gain from doing so.
How sad that regardless of what past/former teammates, the reasoned decision & reporters have all said & provided some sort of credible proof stating much of what i said above is 100% true, there are still folks who disbelieve & ball wash him.
Believe what you think, makes no difference to me.
You should write a book based on your deep knowledge, because authors Juliet Macur, David Walsh, Reed Albergotti, Vanessa O"Connell or the CIRC staff didn't find these "millions paid" or at least didn't report them anywhere (if Hein Verbruggen had some questionable financial connections via asset management etc to Armstrong is another matter).
There is only a certain amount one can make up quotations, use ad hominems or be 100 % certain about things backed up with next to no evidence.
Do a favour for your trustworthiness and read the links before using flawed paraphrased quotations. The article is only about one trio of races of which the bonus was one million, but you imply that Ochowicz paid "million(s)" to win one million which (as usual) Armstrong pocketed instantly and got the discounted present value of something like $600.000 over the stream of future payments.
There is only a certain amount one can make up quotations, use ad hominems or be 100 % certain about things backed up with next to no evidence.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
This is a fair summary of where I'm from, I'd say. I care more about doping than I do about those who doped.
David Walsh met Sandro Donati one time, early into the pursuit of Armstrong:
"Sandro told me something important: going after Lance Armstrong couldn't be what it was all about because the bigger picture was what mattered. Cycling was far more important than one competitor and if you pursue one and become too associated with that pursuit, that is not good."
Too often it feels like we've forgotten what we're fighting.
And too often it feels like we're happy to sacrifice truth in that fight.
It is easy to see that David Walsh didn't fully understand what Donati meant when the Irishman focused heavily on his story about Lance Armstrong (a task that took occasionally much more courage than people today can even imagine).
For instance it took until 2010 (Landis confession) that the anti-doping specialists understood the intravenous microdosing technique of rHuEPO administration, but the technique was described to David Walsh by Jonathan Vaughters as early as 2003 when the two met shortly before Christmas for some background information for the book LA Confidentiel. Even when Walsh wasn't an expert and didn't necessarily understand the issue and there was very little that the authorities could've done about the problem, one gets easily the impression that Lance story was more important than asking more details or thinking the implications of this undergroudn breakthrough technique.
Here is one additional strange idea.
While the "everyone dopes = level playing field"-argument has it weaknesses, if one accepts the simplistic framework that doping = categorically bad and neglects all game theory and incentive structures, the logical conclusion is that Lance Armstrong was actually acting morally sound when (if?) he ratted out his doping competitors to Hein Verbruggen or sabotaged their blood deliveries during the 2004 TDF (as alleged by Tyler Hamilton).
That it because there was less bad (ie. doping) taking place even when I don't know if anyone sincerely maintains this position.
Walsh's contributions to the doping debate are invaluable: so much was learned through his articles, so much was learned through LA Confidentiel and From Lance to Landis. Betsy Andreu, Jonathan Vaughters, they probably would have found someone else to tell their stories to had Walsh not come along, but that does not take away from his contributions (Stephen Swart had already told his tale before Walsh came along, and little good did that do). The way he used Emma O'Reilly I'm still not sure how I feel about. But in the early and mid-noughties convincing the many who believed that the few who didn't were not crazy wasn't easy and neither side followed Marquess of Queensberry rules. Liberties had to be taken.
That said, I've somewhat nailed my colours to the mast on Walsh and subsequent contributions from him - Inside Team Sky and ghosting Froome's chamoir - suggest that understanding the difference between Walsh 1.0 (the nouvelle Éire era) and Walsh 2.0 (after the Fall) are necessary. In many ways, the man has reverted to type. And he himself, even more so in recent years than during his dogged pursuit of Armstrong and Armstrong alone, has painted a picture of doping beginning and ending with the American. That is where he really missed Donati's advice: Donati was able to go after Conconi without it feeling like it was all about Conconi, Walsh - then and now - has made it feel like it was all about the Texan, that Armstrong was the alpha and the omega of doping.
Walsh and Armstrong, they are linked in the morality angle you offer. GK Chesterton wrote this about detective fiction and in many ways it is appropriate to Walsh and Armstrong:
Walsh was the one breaking the norms of accepted behaviour more so than Armstrong was. And for this I do salute him, even as I criticise him.
On the morality of Armstrong's actions, a book worth looking out for in a library is Doping in Elite Sports – Voices of French Sportspeople and their Doctors 1950-2010 , by Christophe Brissonneau and Jeffrey Montez de Oca (it's one of those shockingly expensive academic books). It looks, in part, at the social structures surrounding doping and anti-doping, makes the point (similar to Chesterton's above) that those who doped were simply playing by the rules of the game, the unwritten ones (let's accept that pre-Festina, and possibly even up to Cofidis or Puerto, the authorities weren't really fighting doping, they were simply trying to make it look like they were fighting doping). The level playing field. But - and this is important - while Armtrong's doping may be characterised as having been a level playing field his defence of it most certainly was not and, for many people, it is and always will be the manner in which Armstrong sought to cover up his doping that was a far bigger crime than the doping itself.
Here, then, I would question whether Armstrong dropping the dime on Hamilton and others was really morally acceptable. He hadn't become a rebel and changed sides, he wasn't doing like Jesús Manzano (the man who birthed Operación Puerto), taking up arms. On that one, I think you have to judge him by his motivations (which were not morally good) rather than the (morally good) outcomes they may have produced.
Armstrong was outright vindictive; even if it eventually did not create some equivalency for his "legacy". He still throws that common usage comparison out in space like he didn't have both the UCI and a huge budget advantage in his pursuit of doped wins. Hamilton, Landis had the audacity to challenge his primacy by going to other teams. He really couldn't help himself....that's where his self-belief was his undoing.
Again; his history is known to all and we're debating the fine points in an attempt to redefine the era's strongest riders. It doesn't really matter unless one of them emerges as a relatively cleaner, more enriched image of that era. Armstrong is the only one still selling the Snake Oil.
That is most certainly not what I am doing and represents a complete misreading of the recent conversation here.
As unsavory as it seems, the most important step towards at least ameliorating the scourge of doping in cycling was to take down Lance Armstrong. And the best way to take down Armstrong was to relentlessly focus on doing exactly that. Because as far as doping goes, and as far as cycling goes, Armstrong was the worst by some distance. He was both a lab rat and an enforcer for Ferrari, funded him and recruited, if not coerced, new clients for him. He bullied, threatened and delivered on those threats. He ended people's livelihoods. He started a charity and used it as a smokescreen. He locked in his supporters with yellow wristbands and promises of salvation. He made himself poster-boy of cycling, to this day. The fish rots from the head, and that's where he set himself. Resting upon a throne wrought from the faith of dying children. In charge, at the head of affairs, as he was when he did this:
And [almost] all the journalists, champions of truth, and [almost] all of the riders, torch-bearers of sport, and [almost] all of the promoters, administrators, and governors, stewards of cycling, cowered. And then cheered.
Now, I would never advocate cutting of someone's actual head. But for cycling to have any chance of being a cleaner sport, it was (and I would argue still is) necessary to extricate that guy from the sport (permanently). Now, we can move on to scale what all that remains underneath. It's a thankless, endless job, and ultimately just as important. But it's hard to overstate the necessity of taking down Armstrong. For however trivial and pompous it may be in the grand scheme of things, in terms of the fight against doping in cycling that Walsh overstates his role, or gets it wrong, or gets caught up in his own hubris at times, pales in comparison to what he risked and what he helped achieve.
[Edited in an attempt to be more catholic than the Pope.]
And [almost] all the journalists, champions of truth, and [almost] all of the riders, torch-bearers of sport, and [almost] all of the promoters, administrators, and governors, stewards of cycling, cowered. And then cheered.
Now, I would never advocate cutting of someone's actual head. But for cycling to have any chance of being a cleaner sport, it was (and I would argue still is) necessary to extricate that guy from the sport (permanently). Now, we can move on to scale what all that remains underneath. It's a thankless, endless job, and ultimately just as important. But it's hard to overstate the necessity of taking down Armstrong. For however trivial and pompous it may be in the grand scheme of things, in terms of the fight against doping in cycling that Walsh overstates his role, or gets it wrong, or gets caught up in his own hubris at times, pales in comparison to what he risked and what he helped achieve.
[Edited in an attempt to be more catholic than the Pope.]
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 259
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram