Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[NedBraden]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Yes, your trolling in multiple threads has been quite obvious.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

As I understand it, in the US one cannot be forced to testify against their spouse. One can, however, do so voluntarily.

It is not an absolute ban.

Susan

 

[sniper]

Wait, I said I believe Tyler yet I think it is wrong to make things up like Hog did and I am grouped in with those guys? Are you guys really that angry with Armstrong that you have to classify someone against you if they mention anything that doesn't match what you say 100%?

Here you illustrate the fanboy you are.
You just classified yourself in the "they're all just haters"-category, a.k.a. the "they don't appreciate excellence"-category, f.k.a. as the "Armstrong doped, but so did all of them"-category.

 

[Polish]

The reviews on Trip Advisor:
....down hill since the last several times I've eaten there. Sad to say..because this was one of the best restaurants in Aspen...not anymore.

Trip Advisor sounds sad.
waawaa.
swinging his handbag at the cache cache establishment.
Swing swing. Ouch it hurts.

Maybe Trip Advisor can help me pick MY manbag.

http://www.purseblog.com/man-bags/french-gq-picks-fall-2011s-best-manbags.html

 

[NedBraden]

Here you illustrate the fanboy you are.
You just classified yourself in the "they're all just haters"-category, a.k.a. the "they don't appreciate excellence"-category, f.k.a. as the "Armstrong doped, but so did all of them"-category.

I did not do that at all, I simply pointed out that someone put me in the group you speak of despite my admitting I believed Tyler over Armstrong here and asked if it has become so bad that anything that does not agree with a certain group must be classified.

The funny part is that you just did it as well.
Call me a "fanboy" if it makes you feel better about yourself. I know where I stand and the actual comments I make show it...despite what you and certain other may claim.

 

[andy1234]

I did not do that at all, I simply pointed out that someone put me in the group you speak of despite my admitting I believed Tyler over Armstrong here and asked if it has become so bad that anything that does not agree with a certain group must be classified.

The funny part is that you just did it as well.
Call me a "fanboy" if it makes you feel better about yourself. I know where I stand and the actual comments I make show it...despite what you and certain other may claim.

repeat after me...

"Armstrong is bad, anyone against Armstrong is good"
"Being a doper is bad, unless you have something to say against Armstrong, In which case...."

The clinic is no more complicated than that.

 

[NedBraden]

repeat after me...

"Armstrong is bad, anyone against Armstrong is good"
"Being a doper is bad, unless you have something to say against Armstrong, In which case...."

The clinic is no more complicated than that.

I am not sure if you are being facetious or not, but I disagree, I think there is a core group who are like that, just as there is a core group who are the polar opposite. Unfortunately these two groups dominate this forum and the former tends to run anyone off who does not agree with everything they say 100%. It's unfortunate because I have seen some excellent discussion occur when they are not around, only to be ruined when they show up.

 

[MacRoadie]

Wait, I said I believe Tyler yet I think it is wrong to make things up like Hog did and I am grouped in with those guys? Are you guys really that angry with Armstrong that you have to classify someone against you if they mention anything that doesn't match what you say 100%?

No, but in every thread you have jumped in to, your initial (or primary) intention appears to be a criticism of one or more posters. You're "admission" that you "believed Tyler" came as a "by the way" comment three or four posts in.

It's a real common posting model: embark upon a campaign of ad hominems and specious arguments aimed not at the thread topic, but at an idividual or group of posters. An attack on the perceived ideology behind a post, not the substance of the post. Then when things get sticky, a fall back to the classic "by the way" comment in an attempt to suggest you were in agreement all along, or simply misunderstood.

"By the way, I believe Tyler."

"By the way, I think Armstrong doped."

"By the way, I think Floyd is teling the truth this time."

"By the way, I really don't think Betsy's a bad person."

The list is long and distinguished...

 

[NedBraden]

No, but in every thread you have jumped in to, your initial (or primary) intention appears to be a criticism of one or more posters. You're "admission" that you "believed Tyler" came as a "by the way" comment three or four posts in.

It's a real common posting model: embark upon a campaign of ad hominems and specious arguments aimed not at the thread topic, but at an idividual or group of posters. An attack on the ideology behind a post, not the substance of the post. Then when things get sticky, a fall back to the classic "by the way" comment in an attempt to suggest you were in agreement all along, or simply misunderstood.

Perhaps you should take a look at your own posts to me and then re-read this little description. Heck, take a look at the core groups that I mentioned and apply your little diatribe.

I am betting you won't do that. You see it is a real common posting model to criticize others while ignoring your own actions.

Later, I am off for a long training ride, big race coming up in a couple of weeks.

 

[MacRoadie]

Later, I am off for a long training ride, big race coming up in a couple of weeks.

Damn. I forgot that one:

"Why don't you guys just go ride your bikes?"

 

[NedBraden]

Damn. I forgot that one:

"Why don't you guys just go ride your bikes?"

Where did I say anything about you or anyone else riding their bikes?

You seem to like to assign comments to people who did not say them in order to fit them into a convenient classification so that you can attack them later.

 

[Mr.DNA]

Was Eki there to spit on Hamilton after Armstrong finished with him?

Yes, then he ate the dessert that Tyler no longer wanted.

 

[Big GMaC]

Damn. I forgot that one:

"Why don't you guys just go ride your bikes?"

The 'I am off on a training ride' is classic Carbon Crank

 

[Oldman]

Damn. I forgot that one:

"Why don't you guys just go ride your bikes?"

I've been out doing long miles for a couple of days and come back to this excitement. New faces and old, mingling in the forum clubhouse.

 

[MacRoadie]

I've been out doing long miles for a couple of days and come back to this excitement. New faces and old, mingling in the forum clubhouse.

Monday is my recovery day, so I can afford to waste my time on here.

 

[sniper]

No, but in every thread you have jumped in to, your initial (or primary) intention appears to be a criticism of one or more posters. You're "admission" that you "believed Tyler" came as a "by the way" comment three or four posts in.

It's a real common posting model: embark upon a campaign of ad hominems and specious arguments aimed not at the thread topic, but at an idividual or group of posters. An attack on the perceived ideology behind a post, not the substance of the post. Then when things get sticky, a fall back to the classic "by the way" comment in an attempt to suggest you were in agreement all along, or simply misunderstood.

"By the way, I believe Tyler."

"By the way, I think Armstrong doped."

"By the way, I think Floyd is teling the truth this time."

"By the way, I really don't think Betsy's a bad person."

The list is long and distinguished...

+1
I've been detecting this trolling pattern as well, but couldn't quite get to the essence of it.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Where did I say anything about you or anyone else riding their bikes?

You seem to like to assign comments to people who did not say them in order to fit them into a convenient classification so that you can attack them later.

hey, I thought you were out on a training ride..

 

[mewmewmew13]

Lance loves hanging out at Cache Cache. I think he likes it because in a restaurant where everyone gets treated like krap. He gets to be a class A knob and doesn't stand out too much.

The reviews on Trip Advisor:

Since I was dining alone I sat in the bar. This restaurant is a classic example of a place trying to recreate a NYC "scene" feel and failing miserably. The food was ok - but honestly the service was so bad that I barely remember the food. The bartender seemed annoyed to be serving me food at the bar, which has seats crammed together so tightly I spent an hour being elbowed in the ribs by the drunk old man sitting next to me. I was so ****ed by the time I was half-way through the food I just paid and left. I won't be back - there are too many other amazing restaurants in Aspen to waste money here.

Service was best called neglect, wine list very impressive but way over-priced, food was not the least bit special. The noise from the bar made the dining room extremely noisy and actually uncomfortable. Why would they sacrifice their big paying diners for a few wannabe hipsters in the bar?? Actually, I think this would be a better place to eat at the bar menu and enjoy that scene instead of spending 500 to 1k dining there in the dining room. It's gone down hill since the last several times I've eaten there. Sad to say..because this was one of the best restaurants in Aspen...not anymore.

this is funny. Tripadvisor! Most Aspen places are way overrated...
I liked it much better many many years ago.
btw Hog who have you morphed into...forgive me for not recognizing..

 

[thehog]

Trip Advisor sounds sad.
waawaa.
swinging his handbag at the cache cache establishment.
Swing swing. Ouch it hurts.

Maybe Trip Advisor can help me pick MY manbag.

http://www.purseblog.com/man-bags/french-gq-picks-fall-2011s-best-manbags.html

Business Insider has picked up the "witness intimidation" angle. Thug, bully. I wonder if Cache Cache delivers to Rikers?


UPDATE: A commenter below just pointed out another intriguing aspect of this encounter: Hamilton is a witness in an ongoing federal investigation, of which Armstrong is the target.

Any attempt to contact Hamilton away from the legal process – particularly if that contact could be considered intimidation or influence – might be against the law. Prosecutors might be very interested to know exactly what transpired between them this weekend.
In any event, Hamilton was wise not to speak with him, as discussing his testimony could be a violation of grand jury rules.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-confronted-tyler-hamilton-aspen-2011-6#ixzz1PB1WEo1T

 

[D-Queued]

Good old JV. He could speak out about U.S. Postal's doping program and instantly destroy Lance's credibility but instead finds it more helpful to tweet about how much he hates bullies. Good show, JV. Keep fighting that good fight by sitting on the sidelines while Lance uses every means at his disposal to harm your former teammates.

No wonder he never finished a Tour de France. No guts.

I disagree completely.

JV said exactly what he needed to say. And, this is the strongest insight yet that he has spoken out when and where it is most appropriate.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

Lance should be even more worried now.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

Business Insider has picked up the "witness intimidation" angle. Thug, bully. I wonder if Cache Cache delivers to Rikers?


UPDATE: A commenter below just pointed out another intriguing aspect of this encounter: Hamilton is a witness in an ongoing federal investigation, of which Armstrong is the target.

Any attempt to contact Hamilton away from the legal process – particularly if that contact could be considered intimidation or influence – might be against the law. Prosecutors might be very interested to know exactly what transpired between them this weekend.
In any event, Hamilton was wise not to speak with him, as discussing his testimony could be a violation of grand jury rules.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-confronted-tyler-hamilton-aspen-2011-6#ixzz1PB1WEo1T

Witness intimidation?

Lance is not on trial.
Tyler is not a witness.

And they were discussing the 60minutes Interview it seems.

It is ok for George and Tyler and Greg and Betsy to discuss their grand jury testimony with anyone btw.

The grand jurors themselves have to keep mum.
But there have been plenty of GJ leaks - for sure.
Leaky Witch Hunt no doubt.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Business Insider has picked up the "witness intimidation" angle. Thug, bully. I wonder if Cache Cache delivers to Rikers?


UPDATE: A commenter below just pointed out another intriguing aspect of this encounter: Hamilton is a witness in an ongoing federal investigation, of which Armstrong is the target.

Any attempt to contact Hamilton away from the legal process – particularly if that contact could be considered intimidation or influence – might be against the law. Prosecutors might be very interested to know exactly what transpired between them this weekend.
In any event, Hamilton was wise not to speak with him, as discussing his testimony could be a violation of grand jury rules.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-confronted-tyler-hamilton-aspen-2011-6#ixzz1PB1WEo1T

I think what Maxtion brought up is interesting. The owner may have called Lance and told him that Tyler was at the restaurant. If Armstrong came there to confront Tyler then he may have waited somewhere in the restaurant, looking for the opportunity that came when Tyler went to the restroom.

 

[MacRoadie]

Witness intimidation?

Lance is not on trial.
Tyler is not a witness.

Huh?

Tyler didn't provide testimony before the grand jury?

Tyler lying about being a grand jury witness? Very sad...

 

[D-Queued]

Witness intimidation?

Lance is not on trial.
Tyler is not a witness.

And they were discussing the 60minutes Interview it seems.

It is ok for George and Tyler and Greg and Betsy to discuss their grand jury testimony with anyone btw.

The grand jurors themselves have to keep mum.
But there have been plenty of GJ leaks - for sure.
Leaky Witch Hunt no doubt.

Rule #1, ignore the pole (rhymes with troll)

Rule #2, if Rule #1 not adhered to, keep it short.

Lance is not on trial. (already in the court of opinion, soon in a court of law)
Tyler is not a witness. (The person that testifies in front of a Grand Jury is called a witness)
Polish is not a paid fanboy. (no explanation required)

Ok, got it.

Dave.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I disagree completely.

JV said exactly what he needed to say. And, this is the strongest insight yet that he has spoken out when and where it is most appropriate.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

Lance should be even more worried now.

Who says JV is willing to use a big stick? If he was then he could speak out now and Lance's castle of sand would crumble. JV is sitting on the sidelines as a spectator watching Lance rake people over the coals that JV knows are telling the truth. The people getting burned are former teammates and staff who were presumably JV's friends.

What good does it do if a year from now, after everyone who has a pair has spoken out, it leaks out that JV told a faceless bureaucrat in a hidden room the truth? His desire to keep everything secret is allowing Lance and his cronies to continue to make a mockery of cycling. His silence allows Lance to go on doing bad things.