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

[aphronesis]

Why would they need to undermine LA's credibility if he is not a 'principal'?



No, its not new - but it does blow away the theory that Armstrong is some poor clueless rider. It actually puts him right in there - even, dare I say it, a principal.

B e c a u s e he is a central p a r t of the case (whatever it ends up being) and its c-h-a-i-n of e v i d e n c e even if he is not c h a r g-e d.

You're confusing origins with outcomes. Not uncommon. It's standard practice in the world. Hey, if you have good word that he's a principal PM me. I'd be equally interested to discuss where that's going.

Otherwise you're only repeating the same things you've been saying for a long time now.

Which can't be said of me. Among other things, I never put that theory out there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

B e c a u s e he is a central p a r t of the case (whatever it ends up being) and its c-h-a-i-n of e v i d e n c e even if he is not c h a r g-e d.

So he is central to this investigation......... but he is not the principal.

Ok - thats ah, interesting, so who is going to be a principal?

Wait, they are after George aren't they? Poor George...

You're confusing origins with outcomes. Not uncommon. It's standard practice in the world. Hey, if you have good word that he's a principal PM me. I'd be equally interested to discuss where that's going.

Otherwise you're only repeating the same things you've been saying for a long time now.

Which can't be said of me. Among other things, I never put that theory out there.

I am - and I am still waiting for someone to put an articulate rebuttal that makes sense together.

 

[aphronesis]

"Wait, they are after George aren't they? Poor George..."

Now who's trolling?

Many have said that it could go right past LA to focus on the money. Since you connect him to the directorship of Tailwind you assume that there is no longer any separation there.

A question: you want a rebuttal, why is it the case that when you are not driving the investigation anyone who disagrees with your reasoning and outcomes needs to provide a rebuttal?

It is all speculative. We went over this months ago.

 

[fatandfast]

this single side thing can only go so far. Armstrong has made limited statements , I did nothing wrong and the people accusing me are not credible. Simple and so far it looks pretty effective.
The dumb drum beat that Armstrong is guilty of anything so far is just wrong. His record is not only clean but most of his actions are measured and legal day by day by year by and now decade. If Lance took a kilo of blow from an undercover he would be cuffed. All the banter about jail time is misplaced.

If Armstrong ever has to tell his side of the story many will be destroyed. Landis and Hamilton have the passive aggressive thing, wait until the micro scope is rammed in their hole..skeletons? They will both probably refuse to testify against Lance.I wonder how many penniless bike racers will come out to say that Landis or Hamilton told them they lied. It will only take 1 or 2. If Landis's and Tyler's stories are verified by matching plane tickets, common bus rides or same floor hotel reservations that criteria will make Armstrong's bombs blow up in their faces.
Go over the ex rider list. Help Lance maintain or build up Flandis or Hamilton after they have already crashed and burned. Ea$y choice$

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Wait, they are after George aren't they? Poor George..."

Now who's trolling?

Many have said that it could go right past LA to focus on the money. Since you connect him to the directorship of Tailwind you assume that there is no longer any separation there.

Aww - poor you. So, the George comment is trolling - so you acknowledge that he is unlikely to be the principal? Thats progress...

So, who is?

A question: you want a rebuttal, why is it the case that when you are not driving the investigation anyone who disagrees with your reasoning and outcomes needs to provide a rebuttal?

It is all speculative. We went over this months ago.

It is all speculative - but unlike yours mine is based on the available information.

 

[aphronesis]

Aww - poor you. So, the George comment is trolling - so you acknowledge that he is unlikely to be the principal? Thats progress...

So, who is?


It is all speculative - but unlike yours mine is based on the available information.

Not who. What. Playing dumb is even more deadening than when your posts are on point. It seems this has been covered--repeatedly.

If charges materialize LA will not be the principal--although he may be a principal. Because they won't be about doping per se. If they don't get past doping, he won't be charged. Therefore the fixation on him is moot. You know this. To repeat again: if he is one of several principals, he will fall through the cracks in terms of the media fallout--because it will extend past him.

You can't have it all ways.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not who. What. Playing dumb is even more deadening than when your posts are on point. It seems this has been covered--repeatedly.

If charges materialize LA will not be the principal--although he may be a principal. Because they won't be about doping per se. If they don't get past doping, he won't be charged. Therefore the fixation on him is moot. You know this. To repeat again: if he is one of several principals, he will fall through the cracks in terms of the media fallout--because it will extend past him.

You can't have it all ways.

Right - so LA could be a principal.
But there will be no 'fixation' on him, because all these other principals (who you cannot name) will be better known.

People will not spot the name Lance Armstrong in amongst it, ok - sure that makes sense.
Oh wait, why is it that CBS 60 minutes concentrated on Armstrong and not some of the other people?

 

[aphronesis]

Right - so LA could be a principal.
But there will be no 'fixation' on him, because all these other principals (who you cannot name) will be better known.

People will not spot the name Lance Armstrong in amongst it, ok - sure that makes sense.
Oh wait, why is it that CBS 60 minutes concentrated on Armstrong and not some of the other people?

The circularity is tough here. I can name them. No one said that Armstrong's name wouldn't be spotted. The other principals are all the people listed on those documents you moled up. Just because others are less known, doesn't mean that the case won't assume its own gravity in which he will be a participant and not the central agent.

You don't truly want to debate this at all. You simply want to be right. That's cool. You believed the myth once. I feel for you.

Here's a tip for you: I grew up in the climate and culture that produced Armstrong and was therefore neither surprised or seduced by his trajectory. My only interests here are the knee-jerk reactions on all sides of the situation.

Oh wait, why is it that CBS 60 minutes concentrated on Armstrong and not some of the other people?[/QUOTE]

Stupid question. And you know the answer. Because there was (and is) no case to date and Armstrong is the only selling point in that context.

I'll ask you this again and since you have time to spare maybe you can formulate a reasoned response.

Do you really believe that viewership (of CBS for example) or readership (of daily rags) equates to people caring? On a fundamental level.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The circularity is tough here. I can name them. No one said that Armstrong's name wouldn't be spotted. The other principals are all the people listed on those documents you moled up. Just because others are less known, doesn't mean that the case won't assume its own gravity in which he will be a participant and not the central agent.

You don't truly want to debate this at all. You simply want to be right. That's cool. You believed the myth once. I feel for you.

I am quite happy to debate it - in fact I ask you lots of questions, which you ignore.
You could even show where I am wrong, I have been encouraging you to - not my problem that you cannot.

Here's a tip for you: I grew up in the climate and culture that produced Armstrong and was therefore neither surprised or seduced by his trajectory. My only interests here are the knee-jerk reactions on all sides of the situation.

Oh wait, why is it that CBS 60 minutes concentrated on Armstrong and not some of the other people?

Stupid question. And you know the answer. Because there was (and is) no case to date and Armstrong is the only selling point in that context.

I'll ask you this again and since you have time to spare maybe you can formulate a reasoned response.

Do you really believe that viewership (of CBS for example) or readership (of daily rags) equates to people caring? On a fundamental level.

On a fundamental level?
Perhaps the millions of people who cared to watch the programme did in fact not care.

And CBS just picked Lance Armstrong as someone to focus on as a "selling point" to attract viewers to a programme that no-one cared about.

 

[aphronesis]

I am quite happy to debate it - in fact I ask you lots of questions, which you ignore.
You could even show where I am wrong, I have been encouraging you to - not my problem that you cannot.



On a fundamental level?
Perhaps the millions of people who cared to watch the programme did in fact not care.

And CBS just picked Lance Armstrong as someone to focus on as a "selling point" to attract viewers to a programme that no-one cared about.

CBS picked it because news is business and the story was there.

Don't be naive. They've been running weekly stories for decades. How many are remembered and cared about? Armstrong was a cultural icon of the last decade with political traction--obviously there was interest at some point.

I'll state this again: having interest in the subject matter is not the same as caring about the outcome. Many do and will: for both sides.

Which questions? George? the principals? I answered those. Why don't you reformulate your questions for me, minimize the sarcasm and I'll be happy to answer.

 

[Microchip]

Stephanie McIlvain -

Read the article a couple times, attempting to understand it. Hard to believe that 7 hours of testimony could be condensed into one basic thought - that McIllvain didn't know about LA's drug use and that after between 5 and 14 years, memory recall isn't so good. The remaining 6 hours 55 minutes of testimony must be very interesting. (It sounds more like McIllvain and her lawyer are so tight-lipped about that day, that they didn't have much to go on to make an article out of it.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

CBS picked it because news is business and the story was there.

So they picked it because it is news? Ok.

Don't be naive. They've been running weekly stories for decades. How many are remembered and cared about? Armstrong was a cultural icon of the last decade with political traction--obviously there was interest at some point.

Right, so there was an interest in Armstrong, at some point.....
Ah the CBS story was just last May

I'll state this again: having interest in the subject matter is not the same as caring about the outcome. Many do and will: for both sides.

I thought you said earlier, no-one would care? Now its "many".

Which questions? George? the principals? I answered those. Why don't you reformulate your questions for me, minimize the sarcasm and I'll be happy to answer.

It is not sarcasm to point out your answers have developed from -
he is not a principal,
ok, he might be a principal,
he will be one of a number of principals,
his name will be lost in the names of the principals (who we cannot name).....

 

[aphronesis]

So they picked it because it is news? Ok.


Right, so there was an interest in Armstrong, at some point.....
Ah the CBS story was just last May


I thought you said earlier, no-one would care? Now its "many".



It is not sarcasm to point out your answers have developed from -
he is not a principal,
ok, he might be a principal,
he will be one of a number of principals,
his name will be lost in the names of the principals (who we cannot name).....

I said he is not established as the principal. No one is--officially. I can name them, you can name them, RR can name some of the potential principals: Weisl, Knaggs, Stapleton, etc. Perhaps it will extend past that. Perhaps not.

I didn't say his name would be lost, I said the case: if it comes would assume a significance beyond his own.

Yes, the CBS story was just last May. Big deal. Many in the world and country were looking elsewhere: to the Arab spring and other events.

Saying that many will care (and we can define many as more than a few or several) is not the same as saying that a majority of the American populace will much care when and if the case breaks.

So I guess you don't really have any further questions? I thought you had many--which you invited to be disproven.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I said he is not established as the principal. No one is--officially. I can name them, you can name them, RR can name some of the potential principals: Weisl, Knaggs, Stapleton, etc. Perhaps it will extend past that. Perhaps not.

I didn't say his name would be lost, I said the case: if it comes would assume a significance beyond his own.

So, this case would take on a significance of it own - but people will not look at the people involved?

Yes, the CBS story was just last May. Big deal. Many in the world and country were looking elsewhere: to the Arab spring and other events.

Damn, so if the Arab Spring hadn't been on more people would have watched the CBS show??

Saying that many will care (and we can define many as more than a few or several) is not the same as saying that a majority of the American populace will much care when and if the case breaks.

So I guess you don't really have any further questions? I thought you had many--which you invited to be disproven.

I have plenty of questions - its just your answers thusfar appear contradictory or lacking in reality.

Heres one - why do you care?
You said upthread that you were neither "suprised nor seduced by his trajectory" - yet after reading the forum for 2 years you signed up to criticize me on an issue about Armstrong, an issue that you claim many don't care about?

 

[Race Radio]

I said he is not established as the principal. No one is--officially. I can name them, you can name them, RR can name some of the potential principals: Weisl, Knaggs, Stapleton, etc. Perhaps it will extend past that. Perhaps not.

I didn't say his name would be lost, I said the case: if it comes would assume a significance beyond his own.

Yes, the CBS story was just last May. Big deal. Many in the world and country were looking elsewhere: to the Arab spring and other events.

Saying that many will care (and we can define many as more than a few or several) is not the same as saying that a majority of the American populace will much care when and if the case breaks.

So I guess you don't really have any further questions? I thought you had many--which you invited to be disproven.

Hey, you may have a point here.

18 months ago Armstrong was one of the most popular sports people in the world. The myth has taken a huge hit and Lance is rapidly slipping into irrelevance. It is certainly possible by the time the charges come the reaction will be "So, we already knew he was a fraud"

But how does this square with the assertion that Wonderboy will not be convicted because the jury will be filled with faithful groupies who would never convict a legend?

Which is it? Un- convictable legend or old news nobody cares about?

 

[aphronesis]

So, this case would take on a significance of it own - but people will not look at the people involved?


Damn, so if the Arab Spring hadn't been on more people would have watched the CBS show??


I have plenty of questions - its just your answers thusfar appear contradictory or lacking in reality.

Heres one - why do you care?
You said upthread that you were neither "suprised nor seduced by his trajectory" - yet after reading the forum for 2 years you signed up to criticize me on an issue about Armstrong, an issue that you claim many don't care about?

Actually, I didn't sign up to criticize you about that. I had free time that day. As today. I had been signed up for some time. I read this site primarily because I spent much of the past few years in places where I didn't have steady wireless--let alone television or time-- with which to follow races.


It's not about the Arab Spring or the fact that many more would have watched. It's the fact that not everyone cares about this as you do--it would be a shame if their concerns distracted from this one though. People have other priorities. Have you been privy to court proceedings--in this country in particular? The facts and issues stressed in this thread may not amount to much in criminal procedures.

And yes, people will look at those involved, but depending on the charges and the reach of the trial they will not view all of those individuals in the same lights by which they are regarded now.

Also, I said I don't care about the myth. I do care about the conclusion of the situation and to see what it's reach is. Being aware and being curious is not the same as having a stated investment in the outcome.

Again, which questions? Beyond personal ones? You said you had many.

 

[aphronesis]

Hey, you may have a point here.

18 months ago Armstrong was one of the most popular sports people in the world. The myth has taken a huge hit and Lance is rapidly slipping into irrelevance. It is certainly possible by the time the charges come the reaction will be "So, we already knew he was a fraud"

But how does this square with the assertion that Wonderboy will not be convicted because the jury will be filled with faithful groupies who would never convict a legend?

Which is it? Un- convictable legend or old news nobody cares about?

I'd have to go with the second one since I never once claimed the first--even remotely.

 

[Race Radio]

I'd have to go with the second one since I never once claimed the first--even remotely.

Got it..... convicted felon that nobody cares about.

Wonderboy's worst nightmare. To be irrelevant

 

[aphronesis]

Got it..... convicted felon that nobody cares about.

Wonderboy's worst nightmare. To be irrelevant

Maybe so. Don't know the man, but it seems reasonable.

Point being: that is all I said to theHog several hours and posts ago. You and Maserati waded in and made it into groupies, denial and all the same old cliches.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually, I didn't sign up to criticize you about that. I had free time that day. As today. I had been signed up for some time. I read this site primarily because I spent much of the past few years in places where I didn't have steady wireless--let alone television or time-- with which to follow races.


It's not about the Arab Spring or the fact that many more would have watched. It's the fact that not everyone cares about this as you do--it would be a shame if their concerns distracted from this one though. People have other priorities. Have you been privy to court proceedings--in this country in particular? The facts and issues stressed in this thread may not amount to much in criminal procedures.

And yes, people will look at those involved, but depending on the charges and the reach of the trial they will not view all of those individuals in the same lights by which they are regarded now.

Also, I said I don't care about the myth. I do care about the conclusion of the situation and to see what it's reach is. Being aware and being curious is not the same as having a stated investment in the outcome.

Again, which questions? Beyond personal ones? You said you had many.

I asked you why do you care?
Then you go on about something irrelevant about internet access and the Arab Spring?

Why would I ask more questions when you ignore them??

And just to remind you - this was your very first post on the forum:

i shouldn't care about this in the least. but after two years of reading this forum (all of it, thanks), it's astonishing to see this post from a (perhaps the) member whose posts have most consistently ground speculative discussion to a halt: precisely through their insistence on links, verifiability, consistency etc.

Your points appear to be that people don't care - yet you do, which is why I am interested in your answer.

 

[Velodude]

High Flyers

Aphronesis has the strong view that the prosecution of Armstrong will falter, fail or be withdrawn for a myriad reasons including mounting costs during a period when the government should be setting examples of spending restraints.

Won't happen. The prospective case against Armstrong is and will be a big ticket media item and provide more bang for the tax buck than 100's of no name unreported cases and get the enforcement message out.

In countries that have limited regulatory enforcement funding the selection criteria at #1 is attraction of media attention.

The Aspen Timesin Lance Armstrong's other home town put it succinctly

If you think that's a whole lot of money to spend on a case that involves nothing more than the integrity of one sport and the voluntary ingestion of illegal drugs, I'm with you. But it's never about one defendant.

This week the Financial Times reported that suspicious trading activity in advance of UK mergers and acquisitions fell sharply in 2010, in the wake of high-profile insider trading cases in the U.S. and UK. Not a coincidence. Various reports from major league baseball's own testing program (and home run stats) show that steroid use in baseball is way off after the Bonds prosecution. Not a coincidence either.

Armstrong is such a singular personality, and exceptional athlete, that any case against him will be portrayed as a vendetta. But we have always targeted the highest flyers selectively for prosecution, because it provides the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[aphronesis]

Aphronesis has the strong view that the prosecution of Armstrong will falter, fail or be withdrawn for a myriad reasons including mounting costs during a period when the government should be setting examples of spending restraints.

Won't happen. The prospective case against Armstrong is and will be a big ticket media item and provide more bang for the tax buck than 100's of no name unreported cases and get the enforcement message out.

In countries that have limited regulatory enforcement funding the selection criteria at #1 is attraction of media attention.

The Aspen Timesin Lance Armstrong's other home town put it succinctly

That's not quite my view. Rather that one might expect such a situation (that it would falter) given the current climate. But the stubborn dysfunction of our political climate suggests otherwise. So my question has strictly to do with how it will ultimately be framed if it does proceed. The Aspen quote offers one scenario. I'm not sure that's how it will play.

 

[Velodude]

That's not quite my view. Rather that one might expect such a situation (that it would falter) given the current climate. But the stubborn dysfunction of our political climate suggests otherwise. So my question has strictly to do with how it will ultimately be framed if it does proceed. The Aspen quote offers one scenario. I'm not sure that's how it will play.

Are you of the opinion that the government will intervene and pull the pin before or after the indictments have been delivered?

If so does not the government run the real risk of adding to the costs to date in either situation by LA taking legal redress for damages against the Feds attempts at prosecution?

 

[ChrisE]

Are you of the opinion that the government will intervene and pull the pin before or after the indictments have been delivered?

If so does not the government run the real risk of adding to the costs to date in either situation by LA taking legal redress for damages against the Feds attempts at prosecution?

Huh? That's not possilble, you know that.

 

[aphronesis]

Is that clear enough for me??
You say "many reasons" - and then sidestep about 'familiarity' and the Govt being able to make a case about it.

Thats as clear as mud.[/QUOTE]

Not sidestepping and not simply about the govt. being able to make a case about it. Commas separate terms in sentences for a reason. Let's try numbers instead though:

1. Can the govt. make a case about it?
2. Will it decide to do so?
3. What kind of case can and will it end up making?
4. What will be the ultimate rationalization (the perceived societal good achieved) used to justify making the case?
5. How will that rationalization be filtered and argued for and by various publics?
6. What will be the legal and cultural ramifications of such a case if made. Or if it fails?

Those are many reasons and questions. They have far reaching implications as barometers for cultural and other politics in this country. Perhaps for many it's just about the integrity of bike racing and the sanctity of cancer victims--and the overall absurdity of American culture. That's fine, I've been involved with all (Sometimes I have to go to Radioshack as well and see the ridiculous Livestrong neck chains worn by the employees--but anyway). I, however, am more interested in the ramifications of the issues set out above.

If that's muddy or too few I don't know how to be both lucid and complex enough to match the rigorous posting criteria and standards as set for this particular thread..