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

[thehog]

I may be hog-exact in my wordings.

First I heard it, was on UCI/LA's international media outlet, being Dutch national broadcaster, "NOS". Verbruggen was defending yellow's beautiful work, and seemed provoked into telling the little known fact about the wonderful anti-dope donation to buy the testing machine.

Correct and Verbruggen referenced it at the 2005 Tour to combat Armstrong miraculous turnaround in the opening prologue.

The UCI and Armstrong made the story because the press were becoming super super sceptical of his performances in 2005.

Maybe it was wind of was l'equipe were about to report. That story didn't break till just after the Tour unfortunatlty but everyone knew it was coming. We didn't know the nature of the article but we need it was going to be damming.

 

[thehog]

Correct and Verbruggen referenced it at the 2005 Tour to combat Armstrong miraculous turnaround in the opening prologue.

The UCI and Armstrong made the story because the press were becoming super super sceptical of his performances in 2005.

Maybe it was wind of was l'equipe were about to report. That story didn't break till just after the Tour unfortunatlty but everyone knew it was coming. We didn't know the nature of the article but we need it was going to be damming.

It reminds me of 1999 Sestrieres. Just after the stage completed when Armstrong played with the entire field LeBlanc walked into the press room and gave a briefing. A basic translation was: "Yes we all know what you just saw. Please be nice. Please don't report it like it was. Make is sound like the Tour of redemption or we'll all be out of jobs".

Walsh kicked up a stink that day saying the ride was outrageous and most spent the day shaking their heads as they watched it. But LeBlanc was right - just about everyone wanted to keep their job. No one wanted to be the one guy to call the ride how they saw it - ridiculous. So everyone wrote it like it was from the sky and Armstrong road like a man possessed and back from his death bed. Thats where it started.

Any rumouring from the press were later addressed by Bruyneel - if you want access to my man then write the article like he's a hero. If you mention doping you'll never speak to him - ever. Thats where the black book of bad journalists started.

 

[Velodude]

It reminds me of 1999 Sestrieres. Just after the stage completed when Armstrong played with the entire field LeBlanc walked into the press room and gave a briefing. A basic translation was: "Yes we all know what you just saw. Please be nice. Please don't report it like it was. Make is sound like the Tour of redemption or we'll all be out of jobs".

Walsh kicked up a stink that day saying the ride was outrageous and most spent the day shaking their heads as they watched it. But LeBlanc was right - just about everyone wanted to keep their job. No one wanted to be the one guy to call the ride how they saw it - ridiculous. So everyone wrote it like it was from the sky and Armstrong road like a man possessed and back from his death bed. Thats where it started.

Any rumouring from the press were later addressed by Bruyneel - if you want access to my man then write the article like he's a hero. If you mention doping you'll never speak to him - ever. Thats where the black book of bad journalists started.

Bill Mitchell, the then owner of CyclingNews, being insulated by the tyranny of distance from such threats wrote the Armstrong domination of that stage as he saw it and, allegedly, cost him to forcibly and quickly sell CyclingNews.

 

[MarkvW]

Bill Mitchell, the then owner of CyclingNews, being insulated by the tyranny of distance from such threats wrote the Armstrong domination of that stage as he saw it and, allegedly, cost him to forcibly and quickly sell CyclingNews.

4.4 million dollars is a lot of force!

 

[Velodude]

4.4 million dollars is a lot of force!

Counselor, can you provide a link?

I would suggest he had to discount given the circumstances of sale and his negotiating position.

Bill Mitchell got US flak for his Cyclingnews reporting on the stage 9 of the 1999 TdF where Armstrong was expected to show his past credentials of being an average GC climber and lose the yellow jersey.

However, Armstrong unexpectedly hammered his rivals in a performance that was compared to Pantani's and Riis' dope fueled past TdF mountain efforts.

That Cyclingnews archive report has been mysteriously removed when others remain. Has the Godfather been meddling?

The other Bill Mitchell report that created further ire amongst the faithful was his verbatim reporting on July 22 of a translation of the Le Mond article on Armstrong's "positive" for corticoids.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml

That report remains. Bill issued a parting letter on selling Cyclingnews just 2 months later which has been removed but is on another site.

Here is a poignant passage on his feelings after the Armstrong supporting invective and economic threats.

I also received a lot of antagonism for daring to have an opinion - mostly from US readers. I could not understand why people (only a small minority), who grew up in the so-called land of freedom were so intent on repressing free speech. After all it was your choice to click the link and there was no charge for doing so. But still I received many threatening and nasty E-mails on a regular basis. My employer (the University) was harassed. And lately these nasty types have been trying to encourage my sponsors to stop supporting the site. I guess these types wear white hoods around the place at times too. It made me understand how McCarthyism thrived in the USA. Lucky I live in a free society I thought.

http://www.econ-outlook.com.au/~bill/goodbye.html

 

[Race Radio]

4.4 million dollars is a lot of force!

You are confused, Bill made almost nothing when he sold Cyclingnews to Knapp Communications.

A few years later the guy he sold it to out of desperation, Gerard Knapp, sold it for almost $5 million to Future publishing.

 

[Neworld]

Not sure what your point is.

But, again, and I am just tossing this out for discussion, why make the "donation" public if it was a payoff?

Maybe it was both. Maybe there was more than one sum of money transferred.

Perfect way to disguise a Payoff...boy that was hard to figure out. Next.

NW

 

[Neworld]

Counselor, can you provide a link?

I would suggest he had to discount given the circumstances of sale and his negotiating position.

Bill Mitchell got US flak for his Cyclingnews reporting on the stage 9 of the 1999 TdF where Armstrong was expected to show his past credentials of being an average GC climber and lose the yellow jersey.

However, Armstrong unexpectedly hammered his rivals in a performance that was compared to Pantani's and Riis' dope fueled past TdF mountain efforts.

That Cyclingnews archive report has been mysteriously removed when others remain. Has the Godfather been meddling?

The other Bill Mitchell report that created further ire amongst the faithful was his verbatim reporting on July 22 of a translation of the Le Mond article on Armstrong's "positive" for corticoids.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml

That report remains. Bill issued a parting letter on selling Cyclingnews just 2 months later which has been removed but is on another site.

Here is a poignant passage on his feelings after the Armstrong supporting invective and economic threats.

Interesting read. Thank you. Max Bullying back then too, not surprising

NW

 

[Benotti69]

Interesting read. Thank you. Max Bullying back then too, not surprising

NW

it hasn't gone away.

his quote;

"I guess these types wear white hoods around the place at times too."

still applies to some of the more fanatical comment posters and forum trolls today.

 

[thehog]

Bill Mitchell, the then owner of CyclingNews, being insulated by the tyranny of distance from such threats wrote the Armstrong domination of that stage as he saw it and, allegedly, cost him to forcibly and quickly sell CyclingNews.

The CyclingNews fiasco was just scratching the surface. There was only one way to "shut it down" after 1998. Most of the press by 1999 were sick of pretending and writing about the Tour as if doping wasn't significant part of the race. The reason LeBlanc came into the press room that day was because after 1998 the Tour was on its knees. One more over the top performance and the world was going to turn its back on cycling. LeBlanc pitched it as "to save cycling". He knew exactly what transpired that day.

The reason the French used to get so up in arms about Armstrong is that they cared little that he doped. Their frustration was he took advantage of an "unwritten" amnesty on doping post 1998. Not much they could do but the frustration were born from that day.

Back to the topic at hand; Since that day Bruyneel shut down any journalist who wrote anything untoward. Most got a phone call that if they even mentioned doping and Armstrong in the same sentence they'd never get an interview.

Cycling publications at the time were ultra small. To get air time with the yellow jersey paid your years wages and ensured you'd be sent back to the Tour the following year. If you didn't it was considered a failure and you were dispatched to cover minor league sports in your home country. No one was going to write stories on what they really saw that day.

It started there and grew larger and larger. I say kudos to Bruyneel and Armstrong that they even found the time to call up journalists in several countries and ask them why they printed what they wrote. That takes effort. I'm sure the foundation did some of the leg work but impressive they spent the time doing so. I guess they didn't have a choice as it there performance at times were absurd and they had to add some realism to the proceedings.

 

[ChrisE]

...snip....

I'm curious...why do you keep quoting yourself? Awhile back you quoted yourself and congatulated yourself for a good post.

 

[Berzin]

I'm curious...why do you keep quoting yourself? Awhile back you quoted yourself and congratulated yourself for a good post.

It's his way of taking the pyss out of posters like yourself.

 

[Poursuivant]

What can we make of the fact their has been no indictments yet?
That the Grand Jury has been extended for the six months?
Or, it has all been completed and the feds are putting the finishing touches to their case?
Or even that their will be no indictments?

Any ideas?

 

[doolols]

What can we make of the fact their has been no indictments yet?

Nothing. I's to be dotted, T's to be crossed. It's a litigious environment our sports stars perform in these days, and any conclusions have to be watertight.

 

[Velodude]

Not sure what your point is.

But, again, and I am just tossing this out for discussion, why make the "donation" public if it was a payoff? I surely hope this question doesn't cause some springs to pop in the heads in here like my question about Ferrari warning the "protected" LA off of EPO.

But it was Verbruggen who made it public in 2005 not Armstrong.

Lancie then got caught up in the Verbruggen created maelstrom.

You also had to consider the negative climate for Armstrong in 2005 which prompted protector and alleged profiteer Verbruggen to intervene in support.

Verbruggen offered the Armstrong "donations" (being cash only) as offsetting support during 2005 that Armstrong was actively involved in fighting against doping and, therefore, was a pure as the wind driven snow.

2005 was an annus horribilis for Armstrong.

- UCI were now accountable to WADA after begrudgingly having signed up after 2004 TdF.

- The David Walsh co-authored book "LA Confidentiel – Les secrets de Lance Armstrong" exposing LA's sporting fraud was published in France in 2004 and English extracts published in the British Sunday Times

- Armstrong had teams of lawyers fighting prospectively damaging legal skirmishes on two continents (SCA, Ferrari, "Sunday Times", "LA Confidentiel" in France).

- In early 2005 Texas academic and friend, Dr. Ed Coyle, cobbled together and published old allegedly casual physiological data on LA into a scientifically flawed report to falsely attempt to justify LA's performance improvement was through efficiencies naturally acquired.

- In March 2005 former PA and friend, Mike Anderson, filed documents relating to a termination dispute which exposed Armstrong's alleged PED use.

- In August 2005 Damien Ressiot of L'Equipe exposed the results of the retrospective scientific testing of the 1999 "B" samples of LA to disclose LA used EPO to win the 1999 comeback 1.0 Tour.

 

[MarkvW]

What can we make of the fact their has been no indictments yet?
That the Grand Jury has been extended for the six months?
Or, it has all been completed and the feds are putting the finishing touches to their case?
Or even that their will be no indictments?

Any ideas?

Nothing. You can't even infer that there have been no indictments (sealed indictments are a possibility).

The federal statutes of limitations for most crimes is five years, so any investigation involving the USPS team is definitely 'on the clock.'

 

[thehog]

I think you need to delineate between "protected" and "preventive". It was always better to receive information ahead of the game and "prevent" a positive. This is where Ferrari came in. Hence why he warned Armstrong away from EPO. Very hard to turn back a positive - but it could be done. Protection wasn't protection from a positive but to give information on testing to Ferrari but also to receive advance warning on testing. Thats protection.

 

[The Plediadian]

I think you need to delineate between "protected" and "preventive". It was always better to receive information ahead of the game and "prevent" a positive. This is where Ferrari came in. Hence why he warned Armstrong away from EPO. Very hard to turn back a positive - but it could be done. Protection wasn't protection from a positive but to give information on testing to Ferrari but also to receive advance warning on testing. Thats protection.

Here is a select group(including Armstrong, Valverde, Boogard?, Botero etc.) riding stage 6 Dauphine Libere 2005.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqZnFPCNVjs

Here is another select group, Joux-Plane, Dauphine Libere 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSa3_DUeD3k&feature=related

Please explain to me who is protected and who is preventitive.

Watching these videos, the announcers do not mention doping, pay offs, preventitive or protected. Pretty nice riding by Vino Kashetkin though, also Armstong, Botero.

 

[Velodude]

Nothing. You can't even infer that there have been no indictments (sealed indictments are a possibility).

The federal statutes of limitations for most crimes is five years, so any investigation involving the USPS team is definitely 'on the clock.'

Counselor, it would be more informative if you could point out the alleged crimes committed by Tailwind, the owner of the USPS team, that have a statute of limitations period in excess of 5 years and also the germane fact that offenses committed overseas can be subject to an extension to the SOL period.

Also, Tailwind Sports continued as a cycling team owner through to end of 2007 (Discovery Channel team).

I would daresay that Bruyneel and Armstrong were continuing with the same procedures adopted during the USPS term for funding of the team doping program. You may note that Trek only after 2007 required team bikes to be handed down to junior teams.

With conspiracies the SOL commences to run when the last known act of the conspiracy is completed. For Tailwind that I suggest would be 2007.

 

[MarkvW]

Counselor, it would be more informative if you could point out the alleged crimes committed by Tailwind, the owner of the USPS team, that have a statute of limitations period in excess of 5 years and also the germane fact that offenses committed overseas can be subject to an extension to the SOL period.

Also, Tailwind Sports continued as a cycling team owner through to end of 2007 (Discovery Channel team).

I would daresay that Bruyneel and Armstrong were continuing with the same procedures adopted during the USPS term for funding of the team doping program. You may note that Trek only after 2007 required team bikes to be handed down to junior teams.

With conspiracies the SOL commences to run when the last known act of the conspiracy is completed. For Tailwind that I suggest would be 2007.

What do you mean by "The alleged crimes committed by Tailwind?" One thing is certain: No crimes have been alleged against Tailwind. One thing that we can be certain of is that no crimes will be alleged against Tailwind (because there's no point in prosecuting a corporation that is no longer active). In fact, no crimes have been alleged against anybody.

Sorry, but any discussion I've had with you results in an attack against me. The sarcasm implicit in your "counselor" statement, indicates that you only intend more of the same.

 

[Velodude]

What do you mean by "The alleged crimes committed by Tailwind?" One thing is certain: No crimes have been alleged against Tailwind. One thing that we can be certain of is that no crimes will be alleged against Tailwind (because there's no point in prosecuting a corporation that is no longer active). In fact, no crimes have been alleged against anybody.

Sorry, but any discussion I've had with you results in an attack against me. The sarcasm implicit in your "counselor" statement, indicates that you only intend more of the same.

The doping program, in breach of the USPS contract, was organized on a team basis. and therefore by owner Tailwind, through committing the Federal crimes of money laundering and income tax evasion. This conduct also attracts a host of other breaches of Federal crimes - transport of drugs over international borders, no drug prescriptions, non medical administering, etc.

That is why Armstrong falsely attempted to distance himself from Tailwind claiming to have no directorship, shareholding or management input.

 

[thehog]

Here is a select group(including Armstrong, Valverde, Boogard?, Botero etc.) riding stage 6 Dauphine Libere 2005.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqZnFPCNVjs

Here is another select group, Joux-Plane, Dauphine Libere 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSa3_DUeD3k&feature=related

Please explain to me who is protected and who is preventitive.

Watching these videos, the announcers do not mention doping, pay offs, preventitive or protected. Pretty nice riding by Vino Kashetkin though, also Armstong, Botero.

You raise a very good point and thank-you.

Look at the way the UCI chased Valverde and Botero. Both never testing positive. The only evidence that existed against Valverde was a bag of blood hanging in a fridge somewhere in Spain. But the UCI chased him down and finally landed him a 2 year suspension years after the face. Was his evidence any difference from the 6 single samples of EPO positive for Armstrong? Was his evidence any different than two former team-mates describing the doping regimes? Not much but they choose to not pursue Armstrong in fact they chose to "protect" him with the whitewash report.

Armstrong was very much protected. Not hard to see.... just go ask Jan how he feels even after retirement having to defend himself at CAS.

 

[Anonymous]

What do you mean by "The alleged crimes committed by Tailwind?" One thing is certain: No crimes have been alleged against Tailwind. One thing that we can be certain of is that no crimes will be alleged against Tailwind (because there's no point in prosecuting a corporation that is no longer active). In fact, no crimes have been alleged against anybody.

Sorry, but any discussion I've had with you results in an attack against me. The sarcasm implicit in your "counselor" statement, indicates that you only intend more of the same.

You consider someone showing you that you don't know what you are talking about a personal attack. Maybe you should stop making legally deficient proclamations? Your self-esteem will improve dramatically.

You're welcome.

 

[MarkvW]

You consider someone showing you that you don't know what you are talking about a personal attack. Maybe you should stop making legally deficient proclamations? Your self-esteem will improve dramatically.

You're welcome.

Nothing in my last couple of posts was in the slightest bit controversial. You're just a self-admitted biased hater.

 

[The Plediadian]

You raise a very good point and thank-you.

Look at the way the UCI chased Valverde and Botero. Both never testing positive. The only evidence that existed against Valverde was a bag of blood hanging in a fridge somewhere in Spain. But the UCI chased him down and finally landed him a 2 year suspension years after the face. Was his evidence any difference from the 6 single samples of EPO positive for Armstrong? Was his evidence any different than two former team-mates describing the doping regimes? Not much but they choose to not pursue Armstrong in fact they chose to "protect" him with the whitewash report.

Armstrong was very much protected. Not hard to see.... just go ask Jan how he feels even after retirement having to defend himself at CAS.

All I can guess is there was a big change after Lance retired. My guess is that Puerto raised so many red flags among the anti-doping authorities, that enforcement of doping controls began in ernest.