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

[fatandfast]

I do pity Susan a little.
Reading many of the news reports about internet rules and how the re-posting of copy written content is under close watch by many court systems. Further reading about blogging and message boards, lots of courts want bloggers and moderators to be responsible for the content of their site. If any rules are passed lots of websites would probably implode on the weight of fiction over fact.

CN has a counter on it's thread views and posts, I am sure some people are like me and go to what others have looked at and see what all the attention is about.
This thread without hot ladies is the other hot spot of the site. So rather than police it too strictly they open up, get page views and also mounds of speech that is bad for bike racing in my view. CN also has a strange editing style,that has stories about doping busts from racers, semi racers, doctors, trainers and other people in cycling to normally show up on the headline section. To me a conflict to get advertisers.

VN does the end of the spectrum and has very little about all of cycling instead a feel good focus on what Horner ate for breakfast or if discs work better if you are 6. 6 250 going downhill on a rainy night commute. They over groom the site to be advert safe haven

I think Lance doped, I see where it will do nothing for bike racing or society in general to confirm it either in court or his conscious. I see many people disagree , thats cool but at least try and understand the business model that allows all of us to rattle on when we feel like it.
Calling the moderators out should be done at home or by personal message if they err the role is much different from the mud thrower or it's target, they are just trying to keep the site up, so that we don't have to wonder if Ben King gets a good night sleep on the other US bike racing sites.

Just saying we must be nice to the hosts or we won't have a venue to fight

 

[Velodude]

So what are ya'll debating on the forum at this time? Extensions to the grand jury? Indictments before MLK day, Valentines, April 15?

Seems that's where you've had it stalled out for some months now. That's a debate?

Over 900 pages and 9000 + posts dedicated to Mr. Armstrongs "malfeasances" is your interpretation of a stall by CN forum members?

 

[aphronesis]

Over 900 pages and 9000 + posts dedicated to Mr. Armstrongs "malfeasances" is your interpretation of a stall by CN forum members?

Well, prior to the thrilling meet and greet sessions of the past several days, the legal experts and some pundits were clarifying the 5th amendment rights and immunity along with the degrees of difficulty that separate indictments from prosecution.

And then there was the trusty Ullrich/Armstrong comparison (then fleshed out by Cobblestoned's contrast of German society and media with American), a few nods at LeMond .

and then the Tuesday after Tuesday after Tuesday.

Hog said "debating at a time," I presume he meant this time.

Out of the past 500-1000 posts what came up? Pelkey's discussion of Grand Juries for those too lazy to look it up themselves?

 

[thehog]

Well, prior to the thrilling meet and greet sessions of the past several days, the legal experts and some pundits were clarifying the 5th amendment rights and immunity along with the degrees of difficulty that separate indictments from prosecution.

And then there was the trusty Ullrich/Armstrong comparison (then fleshed out by Cobblestoned's contrast of German society and media with American), a few nods at LeMond .

and then the Tuesday after Tuesday after Tuesday.

Hog said "debating at a time," I presume he meant this time.

Out of the past 500-1000 posts what came up? Pelkey's discussion of Grand Juries for those too lazy to look it up themselves?

Your writing style reminds me of this guy: (ps - you've removed it from your site - can you put it back up?)

http://deadspin.com/5298721/lance-a...-street-journal-lance-armstrong-tweet+reports

I am writing in response to the article written by Reed Albergotti which inaccurately and ineptly described what Mr. Albergotti perceived as an ongoing feud between Greg LeMond and me. In general, the article fell far short of minimum journalistic standards on many levels. The article was egregiously one-sided, omitted essential material facts and contained many facts which Mr. Albergotti knew, or should have known, were either false or highly questionable.

 

[aphronesis]

Your writing style reminds me of this guy: (ps - you've removed it from your site - can you put it back up?)

I warned you about blogs. Best avoided.

 

[Neworld]

Well, prior to the thrilling meet and greet sessions of the past several days...

Aphro,

So to understand your interest in this thread...you just recently started to respond with a vengence (in the last week or so) after recently reading all the 9000+ posts, argue just about anything (apparently just to argue various 'positions' or optics), and refuse to respond to direct questions.

You stated that LA doped and is a liar, but that really won't influence a GJ, the American public or the IOC.

As stated before, here is your opportunity to succinctly, and in an active format, list out your opinion(s) of LA, his current legal state and what will happen to him in say...2012.

We just don't understand anything like you do. With your command of the english language, all things legal wrt LA, and how no one will really care about all the monumental successes and lies LA beholds couldn't you guide us a bit? As Dirtyworks asked, please " just tell us !"

NW

 

[aphronesis]

Aphro,

So to understand your interest in this thread...you just recently started to response with a vengence (in the last week or so) after recently reading all the 9000+ posts, argue just about anything (apparently just to argue various 'positions' or optics), and refuse to respond to direct questions.

You stated that LA doped and is a liar, but that really won't influence a GJ, the American public or the IOC.

As stated before, here is your opportunity to succinctly, and in an active format, list out your opinion(s) of LA, his current legal state and what will happen to him in say...2012.

We just don't understand anything like you do. With your command of the english language, all things legal wrt LA, and how no one will really care about all the monumental successes and lies LA beholds. As Dirtyworks asked, please " just tell us !"

NW

Nouveau,

Doesn't your own post answer your question midway up? I answered succinctly way back. Ridiculed. Long answers. More derision.

I read the thread for "interesting" information on the case as advertised in the title.

 

[Polish]

I have been called a "chamois sniffer" quite a few times.
"Salad Tosser" too.
Geez, I thought those were compliments lol.

Anyway, any idea who the 2 people that talked to the GJ recently are?
I am guessing one is Tyler. Remember when he tweet taunted Lance a month or two ago? Asking Lance if he needed restaurant ideas for MarbleHead? Maybe the FEDS had him wired...did Lance meet with him?
Or maybe they needed to reprimand Tyler for that tweet. Get that duck back in line. Who knows. Anyone ask Mr Pelkey. Buds or Peeps?

 

[Race Radio]

It is funny to see some pretend that the public have no interest in doping in sport. In December 2009, Sports Illustrated named Baseball's Steroid Scandal as the number one sports story of the decade of the 2000s.....don't they know nobody cares?

 

[Velodude]

Nouveau,

Doesn't your own post answer your question midway up? I answered succinctly way back. Ridiculed. Long answers. More derision.

I read the thread for "interesting" information on the case as advertised in the title.

I believe answering a question with a question, unless you are genuinely seeking clarification, is deflective to avoid answering the question.

You must use the same interview coach as Lance Armstrong.

Some examples from the Larry King interview with LA on CNN in 2005 after the L'Equipe exposure of the EPO positive 1999 "B" samples:

KING: Can you unequivocally say you have never used an illegal substance ever?

ARMSTRONG: But the fact of the matter is I haven't. And if you consider my situation: A guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again?

COSTAS: [abridged] Samples were stored until a more sophisticated test came along.

ARMSTRONG: The actual test for EPO, what they call electrophoresis, is actually being questioned on a pretty serious level right now. Why do you think they're still working on it?

COSTAS: And in an endurance sport like cycling, it's obviously a performance enhancer. If you do use it, you get a benefit from it.

ARMSTRONG: Well, if you have such an advantage in '99 with this drug called EPO and they took it away from you in 2000, 2001, why are you still going fast? [My answer: moved on to blood doping and micro dosing of EPO to avoid detection]

COSTAS: OK. Medical experts I've spoken to say that EPO and its benefits would be out of one's system by a month prior to.

ARMSTRONG: Exactly. So why are six of them positive and the other 11 aren't? I'm saying there were 17 samples. So if the drug would stay around for two, three, four weeks, we have 17 samples given, and only six of them positive. What happened to the other 11? [My answer: It was the French urine test which had a very small detection window of opportunity after administering]

 

[aphronesis]

It is funny to see some pretend that the public have no interest in doping in sport. In December 2009, Sports Illustrated named Baseball's Steroid Scandal as the number one sports story of the decade of the 2000s.....don't they know nobody cares?

Doping in sport? Or doping in baseball? Numbers for baseball fans same as cycling? Since when?


@Velodude: of course, only LA and his people have ever answered questions with questions. Small world.

 

[Neworld]

Doping in sport? Or doping in baseball? Numbers for baseball fans same as cycling? Since when?


@Velodude: of course, only LA and his people have ever answered questions with questions. Small world.

How many Baseball players make millions from any kind of 'Foundation', how many sporting pros make millions...doping and setting up Foundations based on false premises? No one will care about that.

@aphro: you my friend definitely answer questions with questions; tacit.

NW

 

[RownhamHill]

I've never liked Lance Armstrong, always thought he was cheating, had no interest in his records, and actively want the result of the Grand Jury process to end up in jail time and penury for him. (Wanted to be clear about my prejudices from the start of this post.)

Up until about a week ago I thought this was the funniest thread on the internet, but it's now getting really tired.

And it's getting tired because the people I thought were the 'good guys' - ie Race Radio, Dr Maserati, NewWorld et al - have turned into the kind of cyber-bullies that would make their nemesis LA proud.

Let me be clear: I don't care whether the Aphro poster is a paid shill or not. I'm also quite clear what his position is:

He thinks any indictments will be aimed at the level of Tailwind/corporate fraud in some description, and that LA will use this to hide behind some kind of rider/employee excuse (wasn't me guv, my name just happened to be on the papers, but I was too busy riding my bike). What's more the general public at large will happily buy into that and/or they won't care enough to be outraged n the first place.

I know this because I can read what he writes (and has written on a number of occassions).

Now, it's fairly clear some of you disagree with his analysis. I know this because I can read your ridiculing rhetorical questions, mocking summaries etc. But, please, rather than continuing to queue up to heap scorn upon an opinion you disagree with, please say why you disagree? What do you think will happen instead?

And because I don't want to finish a post with a question, heres' my two-cents worth: I have no idea if indictments will fall or not, I hope they do. I also have the suspicion that if they do Lance will become the lightening rod in the public's understanding of any corporate malfeasance, and so won't be able to wriggle out it in the way Aphronesis suggests.

I may be wrong about all of the above, but, you know, that doesn't matter because it's an anonymous internet forum.

Apologies if anyone is offended by my tone. But really, when your posting strategy results in an observer who is sympathetic to your point of view feeling thatthat Polish and Cobblestoned are more reasonable posters than you, then your posting strategy is in deep trouble.

 

[ChrisE]

It is funny to see some pretend that the public have no interest in doping in sport. In December 2009, Sports Illustrated named Baseball's Steroid Scandal as the number one sports story of the decade of the 2000s.....don't they know nobody cares?

That's right, the media decided what the number one sports story was.

Yet, even though attendance is probably down due to the economy I doubt very seriously you can tie together this "number one sports story" to fan disinterest. So, how much do they really care?

This is the same with politics; people don't care about right and wrong and how much they are being used, only that their side wins. Roger Clemons is cheered in this town, and if Barry Bonds or Clemons was young enough to come out of retirement (if allowed to by MLB) today I bet they would be readily accepted in whatever town they chose to play. Attendance would go way up. People are awestruck by celebrity, and loose their sense of value when decisions are made involving "heroes".

Extrapolate that onto the subject in this thread the past week, or even the position of some of us (me) take that if this does go to trial he will get off. The wh*re "media" will not decide this.

 

[veganrob]

That's right, the media decided what the number one sports story was.

Yet, even though attendance is probably down due to the economy I doubt very seriously you can tie together this "number one sports story" to fan disinterest. So, how much do they really care?

This is the same with politics; people don't care about right and wrong and how much they are being used, only that their side wins. Roger Clemons is cheered in this town, and if Barry Bonds or Clemons was young enough to come out of retirement (if allowed to by MLB) today I bet they would be readily accepted in whatever town they chose to play. Attendance would go way up. People are awestruck by celebrity, and loose their sense of value when decisions are made involving "heroes".

Extrapolate that onto the subject in this thread the past week, or even the position of some of us (me) take that if this does go to trial he will get off. The wh*re "media" will not decide this.

What's right about your argument is also what is wrong. Yes, people are very forgiving and that is a good thing, provided said appear to repent and changed their ways. And if that doper or whatever is on their team then that makes it even more ok. There is however only so much a fan can take with crooks. They don't like being fooled too often.
For the rest off the fans in said sport, in competing cities, I would say the opinion is not so much ok but more derision if that person is beating his home team.
BTW, where are you from that you can't even spell Clemens properly if he is from your town?

 

[Race Radio]

Snipped for brevity.

You make it sound so simple

I have attempted to engage with your friend and have been met with a flood of posts that avoid direct questions, are filled with obfuscation, and twist the positions of anyone who responds. We have seen this many times and know how this type of response disrupts any discussion. Most can understand why this would be met with a negative response.

In a 3 day period we saw over 100 post from a new user. These posts were filled, a torrent of words. Lost in this flood do you feel legitimate points or topics were ignored? If yes please share them with us and I will attempt to answer.

 

[aphronesis]

You make it sound so simple

I have attempted to engage with your friend and have been met with a flood of posts that avoid direct questions, are filled with obfuscation, and twist the positions of anyone who responds. We have seen this many times and know how this type of response disrupts any discussion. Most can understand why this would be met with a negative response.

In a 3 day period we saw over 100 post from a new user. These posts were filled, a torrent of words. Lost in this flood do you feel legitimate points or topics were ignored? If yes please share them with us and I will attempt to answer.

Like last night when I asked you to differentiate between Sport, Baseball and Cycling in terms of overall fan numbers? Never mind the fact that just because SI says something doesn't make it so. Didn't they declare LA athlete of the year? How did that sit with you? Which is it?

I was content to post here periodically, but mostly in other forums. It can be said, though that neither you, nor Maserati, nor some of the other long-term posters were "prepared," to engage with me, because the second things took a turn that doesn't suit your narrative, you accused me of or alluded to my identity as BPC (or one of his dozens of aliases), Flicker, Spartacus Rox or some shill for Fabiani.

So it is not the case that posters were prepared to engage because most came in with preconceived notions of what they were dealing with and how they were going to go about it.

 

[Race Radio]

Ok guys, we are going to get sent to our room our room if we do not play nice. Lets get back on topic.

Armstrong is in trouble, but who else from his buddies is also exposed? Yes, Lance took drugs but I would think that organizing the doping for an entire team for a decade would mean a lot more legal exposure. No wonder The Hog cannot come to America. I can't image we will ever see him in the US again.

Guys like Stapleton do not have the same luxury. Knaggs and Weisel as well. You would think that there was at least one US based person who enabled the program. How did Armstrong get access to experimental drugs? It would be interesting to see if any Livestrong employees or board members are a target for enabling this.

 

[RownhamHill]

You make it sound so simple

I have attempted to engage with your friend and have been met with a flood of posts that avoid direct questions, are filled with obfuscation, and twist the positions of anyone who responds. We have seen this many times and know how this type of response disrupts any discussion. Most can understand why this would be met with a negative response.

In a 3 day period we saw over 100 post from a new user. These posts were filled, a torrent of words. Lost in this flood do you feel legitimate points or topics were ignored? If yes please share them with us and I will attempt to answer.

First of all. He's not my friend!

Second of all, it really is that simple. If you don't want discussion to be disrupted then don't disrupt it. Because being honest I've also read a flood of posts recently that avoid direct questions, are filled with obfuscation, and twist the positions of others.

But they haven't been posted by Aphronesis.

In terms any legitimate points that have been ignored - I don't think his opinion either of where the investigation is headed, or what the potential fall out will be if it does become a more corporate case is unreasonable or illegitimate. I do think he's more right about the former than the latter, but I'm sure you could deal rationally and calmly with this alternative point of view to your own if you so choose.

Still, anyway, since I have no insight into the investigation, no links to publish, or any strong feeling as to what's going to happen I'm going to bow out here. But, please, do stop shouting at people!

 

[thehog]

As someone who has not been involved in all this nonsense, I think the mods have been very slow acting on this one. There is one poster with the exact same pattern of posting in Lance only threads as some previous posters and who has already stated they knew what would happen when they posted. I think it is more than obvious what is going on here.

I also think its time a rule was introduced that perhaps new posters should have to post say 50 times in other threads before posting in the clinic or specific threads. I know this is a requirement on another forum I post where I cannot comment in the most popular section, it is partially to stop spamming of threads but also to keep out those who only wish to destroy threads.

I agree. I think the tactic is to ward off new posters who might learn something new. The pattern has been repeated for the last few weeks. It does get boring and as much as I love the work of Dr. M and RR they do tend to rise to the bait each and every time. Imagine if that let it go. Then you wouldn't get the repeat argument posts time and time again. I'll all for debate but not like this.

 

[RownhamHill]

It does get boring and as much as I love the work of Dr. M and RR they do tend to rise to the bait each and every time. Imagine if that let it go. Then you wouldn't get the repeat argument posts time and time again. I'll all for debate but not like this.

I'm putting my finger on my nose and pointing at you for that post. Thank you for expressing my thoughts more succinctly.

 

[ChrisE]

What's right about your argument is also what is wrong. Yes, people are very forgiving and that is a good thing, provided said appear to repent and changed their ways. And if that doper or whatever is on their team then that makes it even more ok. There is however only so much a fan can take with crooks. They don't like being fooled too often.
For the rest off the fans in said sport, in competing cities, I would say the opinion is not so much ok but more derision if that person is beating his home team.
BTW, where are you from that you can't even spell Clemens properly if he is from your town?

We have different definitions of "forgiving" in this sense; if Bonds was traded to St. Louis, whether he was repentant or not, those same fans in St. Louis that used to boo him would cheer him. All of this faux "forgiving" is all BS. Yes, "only so much a fan can take" until that ethically driven fan is faced with a choice of having somebody like Bonds on their team or not winning the pennant. I think people love to be fooled; they just pretend it doesn't happen and it makes it all good. YMMV.

Good catch on Clemons. I actually live in a suburb outside of Houston, so I didn't need to take the "mandatory Houston sports figure name spelling test" that are required of Houston residents.

 

[Granville57]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=6973

Charles Pelkey examines the Grand Jury Process. Polish is not going to like this but he sees the GJ's term running until April 2012. Multiple witnesses have testified to the GJ in the last 40 days so it is still active.

I do wonder who the recent witnesses were.
The "40 day" timeline puts it back only as far as early November. That seems like a good window to have access to some of the currently active, but former Postal, riders themselves. Being the off-season, most if not all of those guys are in the U.S and with extra time on their hands.

Of course this a guess. This is only a guess. And this is only an internet forum.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I do wonder who the recent witnesses were.
The "40 day" timeline puts it back only as far as early November. That seems like a good window to have access to some of the currently active, but former Postal, riders themselves. Being the off-season, most if not all of those guys are in the U.S and with extra time on their hands.

Of course this a guess. This is only a guess. And this is only an internet forum.

What I found most interesting about the 40 day timeline is that it shows the investigation is still ongoing, so it is obvious that the SOL is not an issue, ie an extension has been given.

As for who was in front of GJ - I think the Feds have enough information from the riders and team to know what was going on, so I think it is people closer to the corporate side.
Also - the GJ appears to be used for those who were 'hostile' to questions - Floyd, Betsy, Mike A, all spoke to the Feds without being called in front of a GJ.

 

[thehog]

I do wonder who the recent witnesses were.
The "40 day" timeline puts it back only as far as early November. That seems like a good window to have access to some of the currently active, but former Postal, riders themselves. Being the off-season, most if not all of those guys are in the U.S and with extra time on their hands.

Of course this a guess. This is only a guess. And this is only an internet forum.

ESPN ran similar yesterday. I"l dig it out.