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

[Dr. Maserati]

Lance must be a fabulous mastermind. For one man to create such a pervasive myth, almost all by himself . . . Why that would be a myth in itself (if only it were true).

No, not at all. All that is needed is for some to emotionally buy in to the deceit, soon they abandon logic and do not question. Most abandon the myth when it inevitably starts to implode.

However, there are some extreme cases of people who even accept that what they are part of is a myth - they often resort to describing those who had pointed out the deceit as haters.
I know, it is strange that there are people like that.

 

[doolols]

blah blah

Thanks for the list. I hadn't thought of some of those. Great entertainment.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Thanks for the list. I hadn't thought of some of those. Great entertainment.

That beeing entertainment depends on your POV, and the path you chose.

Some might say it's the hard and ugly truth.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Originally Posted by Cobblestoned
Bruyneel will be busted in multiple countries multiple times. Can't leave the teamcar, can't move the teamcar. Locked. Will nowhere to be seen.

My favorite.

 

[pmcg76]

Mainly through authorised biographer, Sally Jenkins. Books are Amazon described "by Lance Armstrong with Sally Jenkins".

Sally Jenkins still is a true believer at May 2011

Correct me if I am wrong here because I only ever read 'It not about the bike' once. If memory serves me correctly, Michele Ferrari is not even mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the book. Considering that he was a major part in Lance's comeback that is mighty strange.

Either Lance didnt tell Jenkin's about his role or she deliberately chose to ignore it. So either Lance was being 'economical with the truth' which is basically lying, or Jenkins is spinning some BS herself by feigning no knowledge of Ferrari. I wonder why Ferrari was never mentioned in 'It's not about the bike'. After all, Lance always said they never hid their relationship. Hmmm.

I guess the idea of a dodgy doctor advising athletes to inject themselves with products that have been linked to peoples death is not really the inspiration cancer patients are really looking for.

 

[Velodude]

Verbruggen's precedents on shady donations.

Verbruggen’s dark past pre LA relating to “donations”

In 1996 the UCI approved the keirin as an Olympic track cycling event for the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

In 2008 the BBC investigatedthe arrangement and found the Japanese Keirin Association (“JKA”) benefited the UCI to the extent of $3m not by a cash donation but by allegedly secretly paying expenses on behalf of the UCI.

The payments of UCI expenses commenced in 1997 and the BBC included a faxed schedule of payments for the first 12 months, allegedly from the JKA, in a currency that would align with dollars, euros or swiss francs (not yen).

The payments for that year total 81,100. If in dollars it would take 37 years for the UCI to draw dawn the $3m “donation”.

Travel relates only to Verbruggen. Other expenses for promotional material relate only to a Dutch business.

UCI is a non profit organization and have a formal process of budget approval in its Constitution. Budgets determine any adjustments to contributions from members so the annual activities produce neither a profit nor a loss.

If not disclosed to the UCI Congress for approval of the existence of the JKA facility the amounts drawn out of the JKA “slush fund” would be a duplication of expenses already paid by the UCI and went in another direction.

 

[ChrisE]

Nice. More proof UCI was corrupt before LA. Talk about myth debunked. Thanks Velodude!

 

[Velodude]

Nice. More proof UCI was corrupt before LA. Talk about myth debunked. Thanks Velodude!

Definition of precedent

"An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."

 

[Velodude]

Correct me if I am wrong here because I only ever read 'It not about the bike' once. If memory serves me correctly, Michele Ferrari is not even mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the book. Considering that he was a major part in Lance's comeback that is mighty strange.

Either Lance didnt tell Jenkin's about his role or she deliberately chose to ignore it. So either Lance was being 'economical with the truth' which is basically lying, or Jenkins is spinning some BS herself by feigning no knowledge of Ferrari. I wonder why Ferrari was never mentioned in 'It's not about the bike'. After all, Lance always said they never hid their relationship. Hmmm.

I guess the idea of a dodgy doctor advising athletes to inject themselves with products that have been linked to peoples death is not really the inspiration cancer patients are really looking for.

You are correct and it has been pointed out that Armstrong made no reference to "close family friend" Ferrari in that book.

Ferrari was an Armstrong secret until exposed by Lemond in July 2001. He then created the myth that Ferrari only collected data for Carmichael.

At 10-20% of earnings it was an expensive cost of data collections

 

[pmcg76]

You are correct and it has been pointed out that Armstrong made no reference to "close family friend" Ferrari in that book.

Ferrari was an Armstrong secret until exposed by Lemond in July 2001. He then created the myth that Ferrari only collected data for Carmichael.

At 10-20% of earnings it was an expensive cost of data collections

Thanks for the confirmation on that. One little quibble on your post though.

It wasnt LeMond who exposed the Ferrari link, that was David Walsh who was going to bring it up at a Tour press conference but the Lance lackeys got wind of it and pre-empted it by revealing and downplaying the link themselves.

LeMond was then asked by a jounalist what he thought of the Lance-Ferrari link and that is where the feud kicked of.

 

[Polish]

Interesting survey showing many people mistake real people for mythical ones and vice versa. Go figure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577511/Winston-Churchill-didnt-really-exist-say-teens.html


BTW, Lance is real.
And he is spectacular.
.
.
.

 

[ChrisE]

Definition of precedent

"An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."

Yes, of course! There is precedent here showing UCI was corrupt before LA corrupted them to another level, or something like that.

We've gone from $3 million for olympic cycling events to some arguable number for squashed EPO positives after warning off by Ferrari, who obviously didn't get the memo that the UCI was in LA's back pocket. I am not sure this is progress or if this is just an infinite do-loop of SSDD.

Were they just median corrupt before, then LA made them uber corrupt? Let me guess...corruption along with tricking cancer patients takes it to another level, right?

 

[doolols]

Were they just median corrupt before, then LA made them uber corrupt? Let me guess...corruption along with tricking cancer patients takes it to another level, right?

I think one of the differences is that there are a lot more media outlets and sources these days, and information can be gleaned from a myriad of places. So we know a lot more about LA's trickery and malfeasance than we did of previous wrongdoers. But, for me, his elevation to status of Hero off the bike is inextricably intertwined with his performances on it. Armstrong is cyclist and cancer icon. You don't get one without the other.

 

[ChrisE]

I think one of the differences is that there are a lot more media outlets and sources these days, and information can be gleaned from a myriad of places. So we know a lot more about LA's trickery and malfeasance than we did of previous wrongdoers. But, for me, his elevation to status of Hero off the bike is inextricably intertwined with his performances on it. Armstrong is cyclist and cancer icon. You don't get one without the other.

Yes, if only the media of today would have been around then we would have thousands of pages about Japanese Keirin bribes.

 

[Velodude]

Yes, if only the media of today would have been around then we would have thousands of pages about Japanese Keirin bribes.

Difference is that in the country where the bribe arose, Japan, graft is considered culturally acceptable.

In Japan, there is a long tradition of wairo, in which a person gives a gift to another person they would like to take some action that is of benefit to the giver. Oftentimes, the receiver of the gift acts out of gratitude, and thus this is not usually seen as bribery by the Japanese.

Verbruggen acted out of gratitude, yeah right, by influencing the UCI decision to include the keirin in the 2000 Olympics. Eventual loser - 1km TT.

It is indicative of the secrecy of the arrangement that it was only flushed out over 10 years later. Obviously the UCI Congress was not aware there was an off balance sheet facility starting at $3m in the UCI's name.

Enron hid all its murky dealings and losses in off balance sheet partnerships.

 

[Velodude]

Yes, if only the media of today would have been around then we would have thousands of pages about Japanese Keirin bribes.

It took 12 years to expose the Japanese keirin/UCI bribe (1996-2008) but only 9 years to expose the Armstrong/UCI bribe for the 2001 TdS EPO positive (2001-2010).

Progress against conspiracies.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Yes, of course! There is precedent here showing UCI was corrupt before LA corrupted them to another level, or something like that.

We've gone from $3 million for olympic cycling events to some arguable number for squashed EPO positives after warning off by Ferrari, who obviously didn't get the memo that the UCI was in LA's back pocket. I am not sure this is progress or if this is just an infinite do-loop of SSDD.

Were they just median corrupt before, then LA made them uber corrupt? Let me guess...corruption along with tricking cancer patients takes it to another level, right?

What is your argument/agenda btw?

 

[Polish]

What is your argument/agenda btw?

That the Clinic Slueths would have blamed this bribe on Wonderboy had Lance been riding Keirin back in the mid 90's. Duh.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What is your argument/agenda btw?

ChrisEs argument is to suggest that this is somehow new and shows Armstrong was not the first instance of corruption by the UCI.

Of course what he fails to acknowledge is that the BBC Kieren piece was discussed at length by myself and others as long ago as July 2010.

It is all part of suggesting that other riders bribed the UCI hierarchy too and got positives hidden -while certainly possible, through all the information from UCI insiders, ex riders, ex staff and lots of 'tell all' books no other rider has been suspected of bribing the UCI.

 

[Velodude]

ChrisEs argument is to suggest that this is somehow new and shows Armstrong was not the first instance of corruption by the UCI.

Of course what he fails to acknowledge is that the BBC Kieren piece was discussed at length by myself and others as long ago as July 2010.

It is all part of suggesting that other riders bribed the UCI hierarchy too and got positives hidden -while certainly possible, through all the information from UCI insiders, ex riders, ex staff and lots of 'tell all' books no other rider has been suspected of bribing the UCI.

I was aware the issue had been raised in brief of the Keirin Association's payment of UCI expenses.

What was not broached was the total amount of the "bribe" ($3m) against the first year's draw down of expenses amounting to a paltry 81,000 dollars/euros/swiss francs.

A UCI member claims they were aware of the existence of a deal but there was no paper work or transfer of funds. Yet the mechanics of the deal was unknown until 2008 through the BBC investigation.

Verbruggen was the dictatorial architect and there was scope for him to draw down the funds without making an accounting to the UCI.

This is the same guy that reported in the media Armstrong only paid his donations to the UCI in cash from personal funds. But the UCI can only offer two check/cheque based transactions amounting to $125,000.

 

[MacRoadie]

It is all part of suggesting that other riders bribed the UCI hierarchy too and got positives hidden -while certainly possible, through all the information from UCI insiders, ex riders, ex staff and lots of 'tell all' books no other rider has been suspected of bribing the UCI.

The thing I can't get my head around is this: the best thing the UCI could have done (or could do) is to come out and say "Sure, plenty of riders have donated funds to the UCI to further the fight against doping. it is quite common". Whether it happened or not.
It mitigates the idea that Armstrong was the only one sending cash to the Federation, and undermines the whole argument of preferential treatment.

There would be no reason to "name names' as the donations could be argued to have been made anonymously. Armstrong would be the exception as he himself publicly acknowledged that he had made the "donations", so even there the red flags would be lowered.

While it may raise some eyebrows, it surely couldn't be any more head-turning than publicly admitting that Armstrong was the only guy who ever sent any money the UCI's way.

The Federation has always presented it's self as an old boy's network, with plenty of oddities explained away as "that's how it's always been done". This would have been a perfect opportunity to apply that same rationale.

It would have been the difference between the UCI just being it's usual old odd self, and a suggestion of criminal activity.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The thing I can't get my head around is this: the best thing the UCI could have done (or could do) is to come out and say "Sure, plenty of riders have donated funds to the UCI to further the fight against doping. it is quite common". Whether it happened or not.

...

It would have been the difference between the UCI just being it's usual old odd self, and a suggestion of criminal activity.

Disagree. The IOC doesn't like to present the fact it's member sports accept donations from athletes. We know the IOC pays people to shut up. But they aren't going to tell the world they do it. It starts generating doubt about the IOC's 'borderless sports' myth.

And then there's the pesky problem of **accounting** for the donations. No one would be surprised to hear McQuaid and Verbruggen skimming. So, once you start down the road of offering some glimpse at the money flows at the UCI, damning facts are too soon to follow.

 

[thehog]

Disagree. The IOC doesn't like to present the fact it's member sports accept donations from athletes. We know the IOC pays people to shut up. But they aren't going to tell the world they do it. It starts generating doubt about the IOC's 'borderless sports' myth.

And then there's the pesky problem of **accounting** for the donations. No one would be surprised to hear McQuaid and Verbruggen skimming. So, once you start down the road of offering some glimpse at the money flows at the UCI, damning facts are too soon to follow.

Salt Lake City spun out the careers of many. It wasn’t pretty.

Alas at the end of day the UCI is not really answerable to anyone. So there’s not a lot that can be done apart from embarrassment.

 

[MacRoadie]

Disagree. The IOC doesn't like to present the fact it's member sports accept donations from athletes. We know the IOC pays people to shut up. But they aren't going to tell the world they do it. It starts generating doubt about the IOC's 'borderless sports' myth.

And then there's the pesky problem of **accounting** for the donations. No one would be surprised to hear McQuaid and Verbruggen skimming. So, once you start down the road of offering some glimpse at the money flows at the UCI, damning facts are too soon to follow.

But that really falls in line with what you would "expect" from the UCI. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the IOC (with Verbruggen sitting in the back of the room) didn't downplay it, possibly as a practice "from the past". That's always a good excuse. Blame all those bad guys who aren't there anymore (but who really just moved up the food chain or remain curiously faceless and nameless).

As far as "accounting" goes, there are already numerous posts just in this forum about all of the questionable committees and pet "development" projects at the UCI that seem to get all sorts of funding, yet produce no product or results. Plus, they picked Switzerland for a reason. I don't think accounting will ever be a major concern for the UCI. Where is that Sysmex receipt again?

I'm not suggesting that they would be out of the woods by changing their story or tactics, I'm simply suggesting that they could have more easily covered it up with their existing smoke-and-mirrors and "hey, look over there" schemes that are already place and that everyone seems to have resigned themselves to simply looking beyond. The UCI just being the UCI.

As you said, no one would be surprised to find McQuaid or Verbruggen skimming, because we've all grown accustomed to the corruption. It's when they hatch something new that the fog temporarily clears (see ProTour team selection, battles with ASO over the Tour, UCI controlled testing, etc).

Both the UCI and the IOC have long standing traditions of operating active old-boy networks while at the same time conveniently blaming away corruption and shady practices on regimes from the past.

The really amazing thing is they pull off the obvious and blatant dichotomy.

 

[ChrisE]

ChrisEs argument is to suggest that this is somehow new and shows Armstrong was not the first instance of corruption by the UCI.

Of course what he fails to acknowledge is that the BBC Kieren piece was discussed at length by myself and others as long ago as July 2010.

It is all part of suggesting that other riders bribed the UCI hierarchy too and got positives hidden -while certainly possible, through all the information from UCI insiders, ex riders, ex staff and lots of 'tell all' books no other rider has been suspected of bribing the UCI.

Surprised you replied to this Melman guy; I type in pretty plain English. He was just trolling. I was planning to ignore him but I guess you wanted some light intermission banter during your cage match on the other thread.

Why do I fail to acknowledge anything? Why is the fact you discussed it in July 2010 have anything to do with my posts? I did not intend this is new information, or the UCI doing underhanded things is something new. Again, I guess my sarcasm without emoticons has done me in once again.

As for your last sentence, we will never know. I highly doubt LA was the only one that had a positive squashed, or made a "donation". As I noted the other week, they tried to do it for AC but the leak tripped them up. Did AC have somebody on the payroll? Who knows. There are other incentives than a bloated bank account to not have publicized AAFs of this sport's, or any sport's, stars. That also keeps bank accounts bloated. Think about it.