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

[Cal_Joe]

Reading between the lines are you excusing yourself for your unwavering idol fixation to advancing years?

Find one post of mine in this thread that supports LA. Don't let the Handbag Ladies misinterpretation of those posts mislead you. Never never never.

 

[Berzin]

A key part of Marion Jones Plea deal was giving up her medals. Giving up his Tour wins, at least 2005, could be part of Lance's.

Here's the thing-if he relinquishes at the very least his 2005 win all his other wins will come into doubt.

I don't see how the fallout will NOT affect his overall number of wins. He won't be able to get away with it.

He may get to keep a certain number, but the damage will be sufficient that he will not be able to say he only cheated to win just one Tour.

Here's another distinguishing factor between Jones and Armstrong-Marion Jones has never come out and said "yes, I was a knowing and willing participant in an organized doping program". She still sees herself as a victim.

Armstrong cannot say the same even if he went into full-on denial mode. But what would or could he say? That's the question.

 

[DirtyWorks]

MarkVW and Cal_Joe are both merciless when they catch a wrong like calling the day charges go public. And then they don't let go. It doesn't help that there's some peripheral defense that just drags out the inevitable fact that the prediction was wrong.

All in all, I think their challenges are largely good for building and maintaining some facts in the matter of the Armstrong myth.

It doesn't look like Cal_joe is very rhetorically disciplined, so be patient and easy on the name calling. At this moment, MarkVW's recent complaints of heresay and name calling are exactly right.

Look at both participants responses as ways to improve your rhetorical game. Lots of facts left to uncover. I think most of us can agree the trail of destruction that follows the myth is wide and long. It's just a matter of finding critical pieces.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here's the thing-if he relinquishes at the very least his 2005 win all his other wins will come into doubt.

It would be a remarkable day if ASO changed the results. Given the VERY tight relationship between ASO and the UCI, I don't see it happening. Add to that the head of ASO is indifferent to doping in cycling. ASO's media properties are no longer making the doping stories, but just rebroadcasting other work.

In the U.S. Baseball hasn't even bothered putting an asterisk next to some of the records that fell thanks to PED's. Both ASO and the UCI knows they can do nothing and just let the sands of time cover up the EPO era.

Time and time again, the UCI goes to some effort to defend the Armstrong myth even into Wonderboy's retirement. Why? A very good question that's never been explored.

 

[Cal_Joe]

MarkVW and Cal_Joe are both merciless when they catch a wrong like calling the day charges go public.

Just calling BS when it floats to the top. Especially when those posts are made by... well, you know.

....that the prediction was wrong.

I always wonder if these bogus claims are predictions or personal wish lists disguised as "insider knowledge".

All in all, I think their challenges are largely good for building and maintaining some facts in the matter of the Armstrong myth.

Wow - very rare to see someone in this thread advocate a devil's advocate.

It doesn't look like Cal_joe is very rhetorically disciplined

You got that one right.

Look at both participants responses as ways to improve your rhetorical game. Lots of facts left to uncover. I think most of us can agree the trail of destruction that follows the myth is wide and long. It's just a matter of finding critical pieces.

Could not agree more, especially on the facts issue.

Great post.

 

[Benotti69]

Well, in addition to being totally incompetent about a number of things, I guess I'm incompetent about finding recent news on this Interwebs thing. Tried that Google news thingy, some other news aggregators, TMZ, E!Online (someone you have quoted before). Could not find anything.

I did find an interesting interview with Charlie Watts. In the interview he did not discuss PEDs, his (super secret) testimony before the Grand Jury, nor did he speculate on perp walks, cuffs, bail, etc.

However, he did expound for a long time on drumrolls. Charlie says that an attention getting drumroll is usually with the snare, but if you really want to get everyone's attention, a drumroll with the Tom Toms and a few kicks on the bass drum is the way to go.

He also mentioned a drumroll that is a bit sneaky - a bit of Morse code tapped out only on the cymbals.

I am starting to doubt your musical ability, especially as it pertains to percussion.

In case I missed anything from the Interweb news, I apologise. Please post links if you have them.

You must have missed the big story of Armstrong at Steve jobs funeral....oh yeah is it because he wasn't invited....

 

[Benotti69]

MarkVW and Cal_Joe are both merciless when they catch a wrong like calling the day charges go public. And then they don't let go. It doesn't help that there's some peripheral defense that just drags out the inevitable fact that the prediction was wrong.

All in all, I think their challenges are largely good for building and maintaining some facts in the matter of the Armstrong myth.

It doesn't look like Cal_joe is very rhetorically disciplined, so be patient and easy on the name calling. At this moment, MarkVW's recent complaints of heresay and name calling are exactly right.

Look at both participants responses as ways to improve your rhetorical game. Lots of facts left to uncover. I think most of us can agree the trail of destruction that follows the myth is wide and long. It's just a matter of finding critical pieces.

It also appears that Cal Joe doesn't get sarcasm

 

[thehog]

Proving you wrong takes no effort on my part.

As with many other clinic regulars, you mistake my criticism of posts - you think it is support for LA. In most cases, it is criticism of people who who either have a proven track record of making things up or posters who declare facts with no supporting data/links.

.

I’m not sure about that. You’ve gone to a lot of effort since you joined this board. First was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, then you complained to the moderators with zero basis that I’m a sock puppet. Since then you’ve chased down each and every one of my posts to pick holes through them. Sounds to me you go to a lot of effort. And it’s all about me. I’ve never seen you debate any of the issues at hand, your intent is purely myself. Not sure why you spend so much time fantasising about me but keep it up. I like the fact you attempt to prove me wrong. Because each and every time I’m right I don’t hear from you. I right about this and its coming sooner than you think. I’m only interested in the truth not in making you look a fool – you do an excellent job of that on your own. Keep punching CJ!

 

[Polish]

You must have missed the big story of Armstrong at Steve jobs funeral....oh yeah is it because he wasn't invited....

If Steve were alive, he would have invited Lance.
Bud's. BFF's.

IPOOD lol RIP.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It would be a remarkable day if ASO changed the results. Given the VERY tight relationship between ASO and the UCI, I don't see it happening. Add to that the head of ASO is indifferent to doping in cycling. ASO's media properties are no longer making the doping stories, but just rebroadcasting other work.

In the U.S. Baseball hasn't even bothered putting an asterisk next to some of the records that fell thanks to PED's. Both ASO and the UCI knows they can do nothing and just let the sands of time cover up the EPO era.

Time and time again, the UCI goes to some effort to defend the Armstrong myth even into Wonderboy's retirement. Why? A very good question that's never been explored.

They would be left with little choice.

That call would from UCI upholding a disciplinary decision from USADA.
Sure the UCI won't like it (or ASO) but I doubt that UCI would appeal any USADA decision.
USADA have been sitting in with the Feds and I would assume can get hold of most of the information for their own proceedings. If (and its an if) they do proceed - I expect it to be a formidable case.


Also - to the best of my reading - the SOL in the rules is 8 years from the start of the investigation. As this came to light in May 2010 there is the potential for all results to be taken back to 2002.

 

[MacRoadie]

If Steve were alive, he would have invited Lance.
Bud's. BFF's.

One assumes that would obviate the need for a funeral...

 

[Cimacoppi49]

One assumes that would obviate the need for a funeral...

Touche!! ROTFLMAO!

 

[Benotti69]

One assumes that would obviate the need for a funeral...

everyday the ongoing investigation into Armstrong continues the fanboys die a little.......

 

[poupou]

everyday the ongoing investigation into Armstrong continues the fanboys die a little.......

If Lance had been cleared for that investigation, he would have song since a while, so I can only believe that he is closer of trial than to walk away.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

If Lance had been cleared for that investigation, he would have song since a while, so I can only believe that he is closer of trial than to walk away.

Good point. If he had been cleared, Fabiani would be making the rounds as well.

 

[Polish]

In the garden of Eden

everyday the ongoing investigation into Armstrong continues the fanboys laugh a little.......

Fixed that for you

BTW, some here say the investigation is already over.
Finally.
Just waiting now for the indictments to come.
Any day now. .
What day is it today? Wednesday?
Drumroll.
Inna gadda da vita.

Are the indicments coming soon?
Well, they are coming MUCH later than I thought.
Me and cimacoppi both predicted they would have been handed down by last Valentines day lol.
Not complaining. Its been very entertaining.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=334
..
.
.
.

 

[MarkvW]

Find one post of mine in this thread that supports LA. Don't let the Handbag Ladies misinterpretation of those posts mislead you. Never never never.

The term "fanboy," as used here, means nothing more than an expression of disagreement coupled with a negative opinion of Armstrong. There are only a few people that use it in that manner, but they feed off each other and that sometimes creates an impression of groupthink that isn't really there. Don't bother re-expressing your actual opinion to them. They'll still call you a fanboy (or worse) the next time they disagree with you.

 

[Polish]

The term "fanboy," as used here, means nothing more than an expression of disagreement coupled with a negative opinion of Armstrong. There are only a few people that use it in that manner, but they feed off each other and that sometimes creates an impression of groupthink that isn't really there. Don't bother re-expressing your actual opinion to them. They'll still call you a fanboy (or worse) the next time they disagree with you.

And the term "handbag ladies" came from a post in another forum.
RBR I think.
The poster used it to describe the core group of haters here in the Clinic.
It as a funny post iirc.

Anyway, CalJoe is not a "handbag lady" either.

But MarkvW, sometimes the term "fanboy", as used here, DOES mean fanboy.

 

[MarkvW]

If Lance had been cleared for that investigation, he would have song since a while, so I can only believe that he is closer of trial than to walk away.

Only in extremely rare cases do the feds notify anybody that they have been cleared in an investigation. Richard Jewell, once a person of interest in the Atlanta Olympics bombing, is a very rare example of a person who was advised that he wasn't a suspect.

There has been absolutely no public assertion by the feds that Lance Armstrong is suspected of any crime. There won't be any either--unless he is indicted.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Only in extremely rare cases do the feds notify anybody that they have been cleared in an investigation. Richard Jewell, once a person of interest in the Atlanta Olympics bombing, is a very rare example of a person who was advised that he wasn't a suspect.

There has been absolutely no public assertion by the feds that Lance Armstrong is suspected of any crime. There won't be any either--unless he is indicted.

I believe that the US Attorney in CA told the court that Armstrong is the target of an ongoing grand jury investigation.

 

[Velodude]

Find one post of mine in this thread that supports LA. Don't let the Handbag Ladies misinterpretation of those posts mislead you. Never never never.

You operate differently but with the same attempted outcome.

You attempt to be subtle to cloak your allegiance to LA by running interference on any post or poster who supports the case against Wonderboy.

You laud Polish's posts. You have no record of criticising the content and structure of a pro Lance post.

You have a record of running off to the moderators to complain about non compliance with forum rules. I could not see in any of those complaints the target being a known Wonderboy supporter

You attempt to use a courtroom tactic of trying to discredit an anti LA post by dwelling on the credibility of a "fact" on the periphery that does not add to or subtract from the gist of the post.

"Never, never, never"

Rings a bell. Yes. From LA supporter, secret and unethical donation arranger, LA 2006 "exoneration" investigation appointer and one time prospective LA business partner Hein Verbruggen.

 

[MarkvW]

But MarkvW, sometimes the term "fanboy", as used here, DOES mean fanboy.

Yeah. But that has tradition! Like Anquetil v. Poulidor or Bartali v. Coppi. Every great rider had his partisans. Armstrong is no different. I don't see the harm in fanboyism.

The reflexive haters are engaging in their own fan behavior, just like the Poulidor fans who despised Anquetil or the Coppi fans who hated Bartali. They are engaging in a time-honored sports tradition. Just look at some of the posts. They have nothing to do with sport (or doping). Who, but a rabid fan, would care about Lance's testicles, or his tax problems, or his girlfriends, or where his next public appearance is going to be? They are fixed on Lance more than all but the most obsessive Lance fanboy.

In some very primitive cultures fans of one team will physically attack fans of another team! Here (thanks to the mods) it is pretty much kept to the epithet "fanboy."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yeah. But that has tradition! Like Anquetil v. Poulidor or Bartali v. Coppi. Every great rider had his partisans. Armstrong is no different. I don't see the harm in fanboyism.

The reflexive haters are engaging in their own fan behavior, just like the Poulidor fans who despised Anquetil or the Coppi fans who hated Bartali. They are engaging in a time-honored sports tradition. Just look at some of the posts. They have nothing to do with sport (or doping). Who, but a rabid fan, would care about Lance's testicles, or his tax problems, or his girlfriends, or where his next public appearance is going to be? They are fixed on Lance more than all but the most obsessive Lance fanboy.

In some very primitive cultures fans of one team will physically attack fans of another team! Here (thanks to the mods) it is pretty much kept to the epithet "fanboy."

Actually - those 'fanboys' that you allude to (haters) are fans of the sport.
Armstrong fans are fans of the rider.

 

[MarkvW]

Actually - those 'fanboys' that you allude to (haters) are fans of the sport.
Armstrong fans are fans of the rider.

But you are NOT saying that Armstrong fans are not fans of the sport also! And they are! Just like you! Deal with it!

 

[MarkvW]

I believe that the US Attorney in CA told the court that Armstrong is the target of an ongoing grand jury investigation.

That would be news. Where did you learn that?