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

Page 379 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Granville57 said:
I have to wonder though is some witnesses would actually prefer the guaranteed secrecy of the GJ setting. Since their own attorneys aren't even allowed in, they might feel more open about disclosing their own past in such a setting.

I agree the feds must have plenty info about "what was going on" but there can never be too much eyewitness, firsthand accounting of events. Again, it's quite likely that many of the U.S. riders have not been readily available since this time last year, which raises another question:

Does/can the Grand Jury ever ask for the return of a witness or is it a one-time-only event?

Good points in the first paragraph -

To the highlighted - the team members will have direct evidence of doping - (which is not illegal) but have limited or no evidence on the direct running. Which is why I think it will be people in corporate positions.

Although one rider who may have been called is Hincapie - we know he talked to the Feds but his attorney denied that he had spoken in front of a GJ at the time. This may have been corrected.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
OK people, excuses for having closed this thread, but given the speed with which this thread kept throwing up posts that inflamed the situation more, the poor responsive by some to bite their tongue a bit whilst moderators were dealing with the various issues raised, and the misjudgements about what mods were or weren't doing, or condoning... buying some time to read 550 posts in peace, trying to judge how appropriate they were, within context, became the only manageable option from our end of the looking glass.

I tried to restore the thread by leaving only the content that was on topic, and addressing post rather than poster. I also tried to keep on topic argumentations intact as much a possible, and leave a discussion thread without "posting" holes.

More than one third of those posts have disappeared. A proportion of those didn't break any rules as such, or not in a way that would normally prompt us to intervene. Most did have issues though. Still, several of them were responses to posts that would have no place here because they were

a) off topic, and/or
b) breaking rules about how to conduct yourself here

and became part of the big purge. So even if your post went, it doesn't mean we disapproved of your post per se.

I'm not perfect, I probably have removed posts that could have remained, and left some post where there are certainly good arguments to have purged those too, in the context of what went. Trying to leave a thread that made sense complicated things a bit as well.

Also, if posts remained, it doesn't mean

a) the opinion expressed is one that the mods share or condone
b) we always like the tone of attitude taken
c) we feel that a particular discussion strand between users couldn't have taken up a lot less space and avoided fisking, or should have been taken to pms at some point.
d) we think the poster is a model poster

It means I had to make black or white calls in an ocean of grey stuff. People on all sides tend to have points that are worth making, or at least as worthy of making again as some of the counter-issues raised again. The deeper your point was buried in a post that we judge to be condescending or insulting, disrespectful of the poster you are addressing, the more likely a post was to disappear, even ifI agreed with the point made. We have a long history of saying that you can say a lot here, but it matters how you do it. We rarely gut a thread the way I did it here, but in this train-wreck that appeared over the last few days, I make no excuses for doing so. We tend to condone a bit more in this thread as people tend to be a bit animated about this issue than some others, but in the end it is still a thread that has a function too: be informative, an area for genuine discussion, engagement, and for entertainment (of sorts). Plus the rules still apply to this thread too.

Posts and discussion strands that went were flying in the face of that, or focussed on something that flew in the face of that.

I have not have time to deal with all aspects of the thread, and issues raised, nor contact all the people I intend to. That will happen shortly, as soon as I can.

I don't want to keep the thread locked until I have had time to dot all i's though. So I will be releasing the thread now.


A few rules that are in force anyway, but will be applied strictly for the foreseeable future in this thread in particular:


- address post not poster. Deal with issues, not how legit you feel a poster is, etc.
- don't raise issues or strands that have disappeared. PM where applicable, or bite your tongue. We are trying to move on and get the thread back on topic.
- don't raise issues about my intervention here in this thread . Use the "about the forum" section or pm. I or the other mods will try to address any issues raised there as best as I can, the moment I can.
- accept that people can look at the same issues and come to different conclusion, or can honestly hold a position that appears to fly in the face of some facts, or make assumptions or have expectations that don't match yours. That is allowed. People are welcome to post honestly held opinions, respectful and on topic. People are even allowed to raise things raised before, or refuted before. It doesn't mean you can slam a poster for doing so. If you feel you need to respond, address their points, or report their post to us if you feel a poster is not posting genuinely held opinions, or trolling. No individual poster is to take it upon themselves to bully another poster from this forum.
- if you can't raise your problem with another post within the constraints set out in the rules and guidelines, don't post. Report or ignore are the only two options that won't get you into trouble.
- don't assume that because you can't see any action taken, it isn't taking place, or isn't forthcoming. And certainly don't take that as a cue to make sure you will do "it" for us any way you see fit.

There are probably an infinite amount of ways to address the situation here better than I have chosen to do. What I have done I have tried to be as fair as I could, and as dispassionate as I could. Like all the mods, I am hoping to spend my time with family and friends over the coming days. If we find ourselves called back to this thread over the coming days, or any other, over and over, don't be surprised if we make sure that we won't be coming back to the same issue or poster, for a few days. I hate to take this tone with you guys, all the more as we went through a whole spell of the forum running itself nicely. Here it derailed itself in a way that we won't tolerate.

This is a red line in the sand. Heed it.

Over to you guys...

...and hope you have a great time with friends and family over the coming days. At home, or here on the forum.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
Francois the Postman said:
OK people, excuses for having closed this thread, but given the speed with which this thread kept throwing up posts that inflamed the situation more, the poor responsive by some to bite their tongue a bit whilst moderators were dealing with the various issues raised, and the misjudgements about what mods were or weren't doing, or condoning... buying some time to read 550 posts in peace, trying to judge how appropriate they were, within context, became the only manageable option from our end of the looking glass.

I tried to restore the thread by leaving only the content that was on topic, and addressing post rather than poster. I also tried to keep on topic argumentations intact as much a possible, and leave a discussion thread without "posting" holes.

More than one third of those posts have disappeared. A proportion of those didn't break any rules as such, or not in a way that would normally prompt us to intervene. Most did have issues though. Still, several of them were responses to posts that would have no place here because they were

a) off topic, and/or
b) breaking rules about how to conduct yourself here

and became part of the big purge. So even if your post went, it doesn't mean we disapproved of your post per se.

I'm not perfect, I probably have removed posts that could have remained, and left some post where there are certainly good arguments to have purged those too, in the context of what went. Trying to leave a thread that made sense complicated things a bit as well.

Also, if posts remained, it doesn't mean

a) the opinion expressed is one that the mods share or condone
b) we always like the tone of attitude taken
c) we feel that a particular discussion strand between users couldn't have taken up a lot less space and avoided fisking, or should have been taken to pms at some point.
d) we think the poster is a model poster

It means I had to make black or white calls in an ocean of grey stuff. People on all sides tend to have points that are worth making, or at least as worthy of making again as some of the counter-issues raised again. The deeper your point was buried in a post that we judge to be condescending or insulting, disrespectful of the poster you are addressing, the more likely a post was to disappear, even ifI agreed with the point made. We have a long history of saying that you can say a lot here, but it matters how you do it. We rarely gut a thread the way I did it here, but in this train-wreck that appeared over the last few days, I make no excuses for doing so. We tend to condone a bit more in this thread as people tend to be a bit animated about this issue than some others, but in the end it is still a thread that has a function too: be informative, an area for genuine discussion, engagement, and for entertainment (of sorts). Plus the rules still apply to this thread too.

Posts and discussion strands that went were flying in the face of that, or focussed on something that flew in the face of that.

I have not have time to deal with all aspects of the thread, and issues raised, nor contact all the people I intend to. That will happen shortly, as soon as I can.

I don't want to keep the thread locked until I have had time to dot all i's though. So I will be releasing the thread now.


A few rules that are in force anyway, but will be applied strictly for the foreseeable future in this thread in particular:


- address post not poster. Deal with issues, not how legit you feel a poster is, etc.
- don't raise issues or strands that have disappeared. PM where applicable, or bite your tongue. We are trying to move on and get the thread back on topic.
- don't raise issues about my intervention here in this thread . Use the "about the forum" section or pm. I or the other mods will try to address any issues raised there as best as I can, the moment I can.
- accept that people can look at the same issues and come to different conclusion, or can honestly hold a position that appears to fly in the face of some facts, or make assumptions or have expectations that don't match yours. That is allowed. People are welcome to post honestly held opinions, respectful and on topic. People are even allowed to raise things raised before, or refuted before. It doesn't mean you can slam a poster for doing so. If you feel you need to respond, address their points, or report their post to us if you feel a poster is not posting genuinely held opinions, or trolling. No individual poster is to take it upon themselves to bully another poster from this forum.
- if you can't raise your problem with another post within the constraints set out in the rules and guidelines, don't post. Report or ignore are the only two options that won't get you into trouble.
- don't assume that because you can't see any action taken, it isn't taking place, or isn't forthcoming. And certainly don't take that as a cue to make sure you will do "it" for us any way you see fit.

There are probably an infinite amount of ways to address the situation here better than I have chosen to do. What I have done I have tried to be as fair as I could, and as dispassionate as I could. Like all the mods, I am hoping to spend my time with family and friends over the coming days. If we find ourselves called back to this thread over the coming days, or any other, over and over, don't be surprised if we make sure that we won't be coming back to the same issue or poster, for a few days. I hate to take this tone with you guys, all the more as we went through a whole spell of the forum running itself nicely. Here it derailed itself in a way that we won't tolerate.

This is a red line in the sand. Heed it.

Over to you guys...

...and hope you have a great time with friends and family over the coming days. At home, or here on the forum.

This is way too long for me to read. Can I get the abridged version?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Perhaps we should just retitle this one the Official "***edited by mod***" Thread, and leave it at that.

Or kill it.

In before the close.....
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,913
0
10,480
Onion Armstrong article

Apologies if this was already posted.

Lance Armstrong: I Never Failed One Of Those Sh1tty, Easy-To-Fool Doping Tests
NIB_Lance_Armstrong_R_jpg_635x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85.jpg


AUSTIN, TX—Embattled seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong held a press conference this morning to sternly reiterate that during his career he passed every easy-to-mask, ineffective doping test he was ever given. “Let me be entirely clear about this: I, like the hundreds of obviously juiced cyclists who also passed them, never failed one of those sh1tty tests that you can basically learn how to beat by reading Internet message boards,” Armstrong said. “I repeat: Those tests—which were easily defeated by such simple means as, say, injecting a chemical masking agent, re-transfusing blood, or creating a urine sample out of toilet water and a drop of yellow food coloring—always said I was clean. And anyone who says otherwise is a slanderer.” Armstrong concluded the press conference by challenging his accusers, saying he would retake any of his previously defeated doping tests “anytime, anywhere.

www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/lance-armstrong-i-never-failed-one-of-those-sh1tty,20612/ (after you click on this it will fail - change the "1" (one) to an "i" in the URL and it should work)
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
It was reported in CyclingNews in 2010 after the publication of the Landis' emails that Patrick McQuaid of the UCI had informed Armstrong's "donation" of $25,000 went into the "Anti-Doping Council" funds.

"Armstrong said he paid $25,000 but I also knew he paid $100,000,” he added. “There was other speculation about amounts but they were way out. We've now found out exactly what was donated by looking at our records in detail. They show that Lance, in May 2002, paid a personal cheque, signed by himself and his wife, for $25,000. That went into the funds of what was then the Anti-Doping Council. They decide to use the money for anti-doping tests on juniors, to separate it from Armstrong, because he was racing at the time. We have record of the four or five races where special tests were done. It was all budgeted and paid for.

I cannot locate any "Anti-Doping Council" under the control of the UCI, now or then. There are national bodies (France, Portugal, etc.) with that name but no UCI.

Is McQuaid advancing that the $25,000 "donation" won't be found in the UCI's books as it was directly contributed to a fund not controlled by the UCI?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Velodude said:
It was reported in CyclingNews in 2010 after the publication of the Landis' emails that Patrick McQuaid of the UCI had informed Armstrong's "donation" of $25,000 went into the "Anti-Doping Council" funds.



I cannot locate any "Anti-Doping Council" under the control of the UCI, now or then. There are national bodies (France, Portugal, etc.) with that name but no UCI.

Is McQuaid advancing that the $25,000 "donation" won't be found in the UCI's books as it was directly contributed to a fund not controlled by the UCI?


I would comment, but it would just be "edited by the mods" :confused:
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Sports Illustrated released their Biggest Stories of 2011:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1104/biggest-stories-2011/content.40.html

The stories are listed sequentially, recent to earlier in the year fyi.
Anyway, Lance Retires is the big story back in February.

What What What?
Huh?

"Lance Retires" is the big story?
What about that BIG Sports Illustrated Story on the supposed GJ and witch hunt stuff. I would have thought THAT would have been a big story - but not a peep....

Is this another bit of evidence that Lance's Motion has quelled the smears?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
Velodude said:
It was reported in CyclingNews in 2010 after the publication of the Landis' emails that Patrick McQuaid of the UCI had informed Armstrong's "donation" of $25,000 went into the "Anti-Doping Council" funds.



I cannot locate any "Anti-Doping Council" under the control of the UCI, now or then. There are national bodies (France, Portugal, etc.) with that name but no UCI.

Is McQuaid advancing that the $25,000 "donation" won't be found in the UCI's books as it was directly contributed to a fund not controlled by the UCI?

I have a cynical comment about this but I don't think it will make it through the mod filter.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Velodude said:
It was reported in CyclingNews in 2010 after the publication of the Landis' emails that Patrick McQuaid of the UCI had informed Armstrong's "donation" of $25,000 went into the "Anti-Doping Council" funds.

I cannot locate any "Anti-Doping Council" under the control of the UCI, now or then. There are national bodies (France, Portugal, etc.) with that name but no UCI.

Is McQuaid advancing that the $25,000 "donation" won't be found in the UCI's books as it was directly contributed to a fund not controlled by the UCI?

Certainly we can all agree that the payoff was actually made by space aliens. It is only rational to assume that it was the aliens who sent the checks because Lance was far to busy training.

Everyone knows Lance trained much harder then any other rider, especially the lazy French. In his spare time he was either sleeping or searching for a cure for cancer. Obviously this leaves little time for writing checks

Given that Lance was unable to write checks the only option is Space Aliens....or Greg LeMond
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Polish said:
Sports Illustrated released their Biggest Stories of 2011:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1104/biggest-stories-2011/content.40.html

The stories are listed sequentially, recent to earlier in the year fyi.
Anyway, Lance Retires is the big story back in February.

What What What?
Huh?

"Lance Retires" is the big story?
What about that BIG Sports Illustrated Story on the supposed GJ and witch hunt stuff. I would have thought THAT would have been a big story - but not a peep....

Is this another bit of evidence that Lance's Motion has quelled the smears?

Armstrong's retirement was 1 of 43 "biggest" sports stories during 2011.

Included in that 43 are deaths, dismissals, bankruptcies, concussion concerns, conviction of Bonds, etc. Hardly a collection of the bright side of sports.

Polish wrote:
What about that BIG Sports Illustrated Story on the supposed GJ and witch hunt stuff. I would have thought THAT would have been a big story - but not a peep....

As the Grand Jury proceedings are secret SI cannot rely on any authority that Armstrong is the target. BTW, the BIG SI story about the GJ proceedings would have to be in 2010 and not 2011.

When LA is indicted or there is a "no bill" issued then it will make the SI annual list.
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Velodude said:
Armstrong's retirement was 1 of 43 "biggest" sports stories during 2011.

Included in that 43 are deaths, dismissals, bankruptcies, concussion concerns, conviction of Bonds, etc. Hardly a collection of the bright side of sports.



As the Grand Jury proceedings are secret SI cannot rely on any authority that Armstrong is the target. BTW, the BIG SI story about the GJ proceedings would have to be in 2010 and not 2011.

When LA is indicted or there is a "no bill" issued then it will make the SI annual list.

Was there really any point in replying to the post?
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
Race Radio said:
Certainly we can all agree that the payoff was actually made by space aliens. It is only rational to assume that it was the aliens who sent the checks because Lance was far to busy training.

Everyone knows Lance trained much harder then any other rider, especially the lazy French. In his spare time he was either sleeping or searching for a cure for cancer. Obviously this leaves little time for writing checks

Given that Lance was unable to write checks the only option is Space Aliens....or Greg LeMond

I think you forgot parenting????:eek:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Granville57 said:
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.

nail.. head..

wonder which riders used to ride for Bruyneel but at the end of this season moved on to fresh pastures..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.