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

[JRTinMA]

Since you are in the mood for answering questions - can you actually state who these people are? You are making a lot of very broad claims, if they are true why not name these posters.

"The ones who call LA a bully and then display the exact same behavior in the clinic." - Who?
"The ones who hero worship FL for coming clean but ignore him when he states LA was a great competitor." - Who?
"The ones who bemoan the lies and PR of the Armstrong camp but use misinformation in the campaign all the time." - Who and some examples?
"Yes LA doped but to say he won seven tours on doping alone is idiotic." - Who said that?
"When I come on here I often wonder what the motive is and thats what makes the experience interesting for me." - Have you ever simply asked these unnamed posters what their motivation is?

Sorry doc, I appreciate your interest in my post, I can't debate you on all your questions. You have unlimited time on your hands and your only goal is to derail threads. If you can narrow this down to one or two major points of concern for you I will attempt to engage you, at least up to the point you engage in ad hominem.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry doc, I appreciate your interest in my post, I can't debate you on all your questions. You have unlimited time on your hands and your only goal is to derail threads. If you can narrow this down to one or two major points of concern for you I will attempt to engage you, at least up to the point you engage in ad hominem.

Why do people seem to take offence when asked to back up what they say? You brought it up - by answering it stops any derailment of the thread.

I only asked 5 questions, which you put forth, it shouldn't take you any time to back up your claim if it is as blatant or obvious as you are suggesting.

I will add another question - where have I engaged in "ad hominem' as you suggest?

 

[JRTinMA]

Why do people seem to take offence when asked to back up what they say? You brought it up - by answering it stops any derailment of the thread.

I only asked 5 questions, which you put forth, it shouldn't take you any time to back up your claim if it is as blatant or obvious as you are suggesting.

I will add another question - where have I engaged in "ad hominem' as you suggest?

No offense taken. In the strictest sense I did not accuse you of ad hominem, I said I would engage you to that point. Now just narrow it to two, I will give you a trial run on two and decide from there, thnkskbye.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No offense taken. In the strictest sense I did not accuse you of ad hominem, I said I would engage you to that point. Now just narrow it to two, I will give you a trial run on two and decide from there, thnkskbye.

So, you didn't accuse me in "the strictest sense" - so it was another broad claim that you cannot back up.

I would't like you accusing me of derailing the thread (even though I wasn't the one to bring up these points) so I have started a separate thread so 'off-topic' questions like these can be discussed.

Let me add - I am not the one on a trial run, you made the claim either you should be able to back it up or withdraw it.

 

[JRTinMA]

So, you didn't accuse me in "the strictest sense" - so it was another broad claim that you cannot back up.

I would't like you accusing me of derailing the thread (even though I wasn't the one to bring up these points) so I have started a separate thread so 'off-topic' questions like these can be discussed.

Let me add - I am not the one on a trial run, you made the claim either you should be able to back it up or withdraw it.

My claims stand and are factual. I know you struggle sometimes so let me help. I made no claim of your use of ad hominem, I said I would debate you up to that point. See that is a stop point on debating you not a claim you have used it in the past, its quite simple, keep up doc.

 

[VeloCity]

My claims stand and are factual. I know you struggle sometimes so let me help. I made no claim of your use of ad hominem, I said I would debate you up to that point. See that is a stop point on debating you not a claim you have used it in the past, its quite simple, keep up doc.

No, you made a claim and are now unwilling to back it up.

I guess what I don't understand here is that it's not about whether or not Armstrong doped - the charges that (as I understand them) are far more serious than that. To hope that someone skates from some pretty serious crimes just because you'd like to see heads explode in the clinic is, well, kind of stupid.

But it's also irrelevant - like in the SCA case, so much stuff is going to come out that even if a jury decides in Armstrong's favor, his reputation will be destroyed beyond repair. Look at Bonds, for eg - he may have gotten a legal slap on the risk, but in every other way, he's ruined.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave I'm not sure I discount the power in that statement with a jury of simpletons.

If a jury cannot convict melonhead Bonds on something simple and blatantly obvious, how can they muddle through a complex case involving famous athletes that have "never tested positive"? That is at the core and it will resonate...if LA did all of these things why didn't he test positive? The "the tests were flawed" argument may not have alot of traction. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit" seems stupid but it works on the galactically stupid and naive. You, RR, etc. will not be sitting on that jury.

We've seen special treatment given to stars by juries before, but the totally stupid irrational decisions produced by the Bonds jury should not be dismissed.

Yes, we are still a long way from hearing the fat lady sings.

I was merely pointing out that Fabiani may have to eat his own words. When it comes to "old, tired lies" the jury may find that it is Lance & co that have been spinning them.

If the shoe fits, you can't acquit.

Dave.

 

[JRTinMA]

No, you made a claim and are now unwilling to back it up.

I guess what I don't understand here is that it's not about whether or not Armstrong doped - the charges that (as I understand them) are far more serious than that. To hope that someone skates from some pretty serious crimes just because you'd like to see heads explode in the clinic is, well, kind of stupid.

But it's also irrelevant - like in the SCA case, so much stuff is going to come out that even if a jury decides in Armstrong's favor, his reputation will be destroyed beyond repair. Look at Bonds, for eg - he may have gotten a legal slap on the risk, but in every other way, he's ruined.

I'm willing to back it up but I set some rules, I won't address that again but my offer stands.

I agree its a horrible motive but its how I feel and I may very well be "kind of stupid". I just don't care that much, the whole sport was a fraud during that time period. I will save some of you the effort, I know this is all fanboy tactics, I have heard it a million times.

Will he be ruined? Do you think A-Rod and Pettitte are ruined? This has not played out yet so don't say they came clean. Bonds is a different example and I know why he's a bit more ruined, it has nothing to do with drugs or perjury. Ask the average american not posting in the clinic or on some message board about what a colossal waste of money investigating LA is and see what they think. Somebody right in the middle of the curve where the population resides.

I think oft he FL to LA comparison all the time. Its been said that LA has no friends only employees and maybe thats true but who has the better rep in the cycling world today? FL or LA? Floyd Landis is a hero to this sport and he's treated like a pariah. I have come to appreciate what he did way more than I did a year ago, the guy should be revered. Fact is I didn't care about LA but I certainly was a Floyd fanboy. I believed him because he was real and because of his background and I got burned. I have no idea what Floyd wants, part of me wants to see a full spectacle at ToC and part of me wants him to move on. He's not going to get the respect he deserves.

So my point is **** ain't always fair and it ****es me off.

 

[Race Radio]

Ask the average american not posting in the clinic or on some message board about what a colossal waste of money investigating LA is and see what they think. Somebody right in the middle of the curve where the population resides.

The average American has no idea of what the investigation is about. Their primary source of info has been Armstrong's media campaign.

If the charges are filed and include multiple charges of financial misconduct opinions will change.

How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does he get a pass on all crimes or just the doping ones?

 

[JRTinMA]

The average American has no idea of what the investigation is about. Their primary source of info has been Armstrong's media campaign.

If the charges are filed and include multiple charges of financial misconduct opinions will change.

How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does he get a pass on all crimes or just the doping ones?

I suggest the average american doesn't know anything about the investigation. They are aware of it but have little concern for the progress or outcome. I was one of your first twitter followers and I get almost all of my LA news from you. I don't follow LA so I am not even sure where to get the LA media campaign. Actually, I guess I get that from you too. So if I don't know where to get the info where is the average american getting the info? I don't think anybodies story is reaching the general population, the group right in the middle of the curve. I just don't think people care enough about LA or cycling in this country to agree with you on the bold. They didn't care in baseball and cycling is a fringe sport at best so maybe this will drive it further into the periphery, that seems to be a likely outcome.

To your questions. I have never suggested they shouldn't investigate and prosecute so I assume they are at large questions. I have no problem with the investigation, its not a waste of money at all, its nothing more than a tear in the ocean. I have always maintained, he did the crime, he won't do the time. Sadly

 

[uspostal]

I'm not a religious person and don't cling to anything for my sanctity. My post is laced with facts (irrational Bonds and OJ decisions) and a rational argument on the mindset of the average idiot that sits on juries, vs a punchline people use in here all the time (never tested positive). I interface with people every day who should be totally rational, yet they come to the most stupid and irrational conclusions about things that are black and white.

I think he is no more innocent than you do, but let's not let that little fact muddle the internet jousting of supposed in-denial fanboys vs the reality based community. If he skates on all of this I will enjoy watching the group aneurysm of the hate crowd. I would donate to his defense to see that. The fun part will be digging up old posts to jam in the face of the ever-so-confident in the jury system of the US, which is misplaced IMO. YMMV.

Well said Chris, its more of a entertainment value for your posts. 1 pro LA post draws several heated responses of how stupid the post was, how bad a person LA is, and the worlds biggest cheat and fraud to walk the face of the earth. And the whole time the pro LA poster is laughing ,because he doesn't really care.

 

[Anonymous]

Well said Chris, its more of a entertainment value for your posts. 1 pro LA post draws several heated responses of how stupid the post was, how bad a person LA is, and the worlds biggest cheat and fraud to walk the face of the earth. And the whole time the pro LA poster is laughing ,because he doesn't really care.

I am glad you guys are bringing this out because the thing is, this is the exact definition of trolling. I know that the mods hate to hear that word now, but if you are a mod, and you read the above, how can any of you say that such a motive is anything but trolling? This is what many have been saying. Me, I don't have that much of a problem with it, but it seems there has been some hand wringing over people calling things trolling, and if a person's ONLY motive is to incite, that is the pure definition of trolling.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Well said Chris, its more of a entertainment value for your posts. 1 pro LA post draws several heated responses of how stupid the post was, how bad a person LA is, and the worlds biggest cheat and fraud to walk the face of the earth. And the whole time the pro LA poster is laughing ,because he doesn't really care.

where does "pretending not to care" fit in on the phases of dealing with crushing disappointment chart again?

 

[JRTinMA]

I am glad you guys are bringing this out because the thing is, this is the exact definition of trolling. I know that the mods hate to hear that word no, but if you are a mod, and you read the above, how can any of you say that such a motive is anything but trolling? This is what many have been saying. Me, I don't have that much of a problem with it, but it seems there has been some hand wringing over people calling things trolling, and if a person's ONLY motive is to incite, that is the pure definition of trolling.

I would like to clarify one point. Posting to get a rise out of the clinic and inciting five or six responses is the definition of trolling for sure. A post that I may get some amusement out of witnessing the combined clinic hand wringing of an innocent verdict is not trolling. It may make me a lot of things but a troll ain't one. Not to say I haven't done it in the past, hey, we all grow.

 

[Anonymous]

I would like to clarify one point. Posting to get a rise out of the clinic and inciting five or six responses is the definition of trolling for sure. A post that I may get some amusement out of witnessing the combined clinic hand wringing of an innocent verdict is not trolling. It may make me a lot of things but a troll ain't one. Not to say I haven't done it in the past, hey, we all grow.

No, the two are different. I was referring to uspostals post only there. As for gloating over a not-guilty verdict (if there is trial in the first place) would be deserved. I will come take my medicine, you can be sure of that.

I hope it doesn't happen, but our justice system works in unpredictable ways, especially when a jury is involved.

 

[VeloCity]

I suggest the average american doesn't know anything about the investigation.

Which is why it's all going to come as quite a shock - I don't think the "average American" really cares whether or not Armstrong/USPS riders were doping, the average American probably wouldn't be too surprised to learn that they were, and if the investigation were just about doping, I doubt too many people would care.

But charges like fraud and money laundering and so on and so forth, that's an entirely different category, especially when it involves someone with Armstrong's reputation among the general population. Even if he were to skate, just being associated with charges like that would be enough to tarnish his reputation for good.

And that is setting aside all of the testimony of multiple teammates and whoever else about the doping itself, ie on the sporting side of things. Right now, it's being portrayed as Landis' word vs Armstrong's, but that'll change pretty quickly when the testimony of other USPS riders/personnel is released.

Even if he is let off the hook legally, I can't see that anything good is going to come from this for Armstrong.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

There are a lot of posters like uspostal here who appear to have zero interest in seeing justice served. Their only interest seems to be in acquitting Armstrong.

If the guy's innocent, which based on the evidence thus far, appears to have a probability of zero, he will be acquitted and his legacy will continue.

If he's guilty, he will go down as one of the greatest sports frauds in history. His legion of sycophants, who have lived off the mushrooms growing on that turd, will have nothing but brown lips to show for it.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, the way that Armstrong has behaved towards Betsy and Frankie Andreu, Simeoni, Landis, Kimmage, and others shows him to be nothing but a classless thug whose only saving grace lies in seven trophies and their questionable legitimacy.

 

[Topangarider]

Any ideas as to the role A. Lim might play as a witness?
It was interesting to read yesterday that the Feds were interested in obtaining US Postal blood (numerous rider for numerous years) as that potential evidence would no doubt be an incentive for riders to testify truthfully in front of the grand jury. I am sure the riders who testified were informed of the gact that the Feds intended to test their blood.
But it's less clear what the Feds might have on Lim. Is he a minor player in this? He was mentioned in yesterday's AP story but without any details or speculation about his role other than as a witness.

 

[MarkvW]

Any ideas as to the role A. Lim might play as a witness?
It was interesting to read yesterday that the Feds were interested in obtaining US Postal blood (numerous rider for numerous years) as that potential evidence would no doubt be an incentive for riders to testify truthfully in front of the grand jury. I am sure the riders who testified were informed of the gact that the Feds intended to test their blood.
But it's less clear what the Feds might have on Lim. Is he a minor player in this? He was mentioned in yesterday's AP story but without any details or speculation about his role other than as a witness.

Floyd implicated Lim. If Lim's GJ testimony corroborated Floyd, then he could testify to Floyd's prior consistent statements about doping to rebut an opponent's claim that Floyd recently fabricated his testimony. He could also provide expert insight regards common doping techniques. In other words, he could be a good corroborator of Floyd. Beyond that, who knows? If Lim's testimony contradicted Floyd's, it is difficult to see Lim as a gov't witness. I've read reports that link Lim to Armstrong, but I don't know anything about the nature of that connection.

 

[pmcg76]

Its really not that simple, my target since you ask is the clinic specifically. Not everybody in the clinic but most of them. Some posters have been incredibly consistent, TFF comes to mind and then there are the ones I will revel in their agony if he walks. Its the hypocrites I would pay to have a webcam on the moment the decision is announced.

The ones who call LA a bully and then display the exact same behavior in the clinic. The ones who hero worship FL for coming clean but ignore him when he states LA was a great competitor. The ones who bemoan the lies and PR of the Armstrong camp but use misinformation in the campaign all the time. The hypocrisy goes on and on. Quite honestly I have never understood the personal agenda of some of the posters, this simply does not happen in other sports. There are no web sites decrying the antics of Clemens, A-Rod, Ramirez or Bonds in the same manner. In fact, if Clemens could still put one over the plate high and tight at 97mph he would be welcomed back to boston like a hero. Yes LA doped but to say he won seven tours on doping alone is idiotic. So I find it interesting so much hate is aimed at one fraud, the sporting world is full of them. Its largely ignored and still encouraged in some sports. When I come on here I often wonder what the motive is and thats what makes the experience interesting for me. He was a fraud, I agree, but the whole sport was a fraud from the day the first oxygen vector drug was injected right up to today. I love racing my bike and I love the grass roots part of cycling but I understand the pros are a side show at best.

You asked!

In a sense you are right but as I consistenly point out, Lance is not just another athlete like the guys you listed or Merckx or Contador or whoever. Lance represents something else entirely, a cancer survivor, if Lance were just another athlete, he would have had nowhere near the same riches, fame, leeway etc. He is not even the most successful 4-5 cyclists of all time but he dwarfs all other cyclists in terms of fame, not because of his athletic success but because of his STORY.

Its how he used that story to cheat, bully and manipulate his way to the top that is the biggest fraud and grinds with so many people. ItS not just about the doping. Lance allowed himself and actively promoted a certain image of himself as the survivor, the great hero, the cleaner than thou cyclist.

Any guy who starts of from the point of 'I survived cancer so no way would I put drugs in my body' is putting himself on an almighty pedestal and the thing is so many people knew he was doped to the gills from the start. The French for a start, the likes of Kimmage, Walsh. By 2004 and the Simeoni incident it was obvious to all with a brain that he was truly a doper.

I have no doubt without the cancer angle and the fame and success that brought to cycling, Lance would have been brought down long before he ever got near 7 Tours wins. The cancer angle was always cynically used as a shield and I find that offensive and immoral.

I think most people would like to see him go down not because he cheated but of how he used cancer to camouflage that cheating and promote himself as some sort of icon with all the attending posturing and BS. I really dont get bothered by dopers, I dont hate on them the way some do on here, I understand the part of doping in the context of cycling history. It does **** me of when someone is busted and I wish it didnt exist but I deal with it in a rational manner.

What Armstrong done and got away with goes far beyond the realm of just another doping cyclist and to have listen all the BS around the guy for the last 7-8 years all the while knowing he was a fake, well I just find it hard how anyone can not want to see him go down. To me Lance is the perfect figurehead of an immorally bankrupt society in which fakes can become super-rich icons based on nothing more than lies and BS.

 

[MarkvW]

There are a lot of posters like uspostal here who appear to have zero interest in seeing justice served. Their only interest seems to be in acquitting Armstrong.

If the guy's innocent, which based on the evidence thus far, appears to have a probability of zero, he will be acquitted and his legacy will continue.

MIf he's guilty, he will go down as one of the greatest sports frauds in history. His legion of sycophants, who have lived off the mushrooms growing on that turd, will have nothing but brown lips to show for it.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, the way that Armstrong has behaved towards Betsy and Frankie Andreu, Simeoni, Landis, Kimmage, and others shows him to be nothing but a classless thug whose only saving grace lies in seven trophies and their questionable legitimacy.

Justice, for some, means a fair trial based upon established procedures involving admissible evidence.

 

[Berzin]

In other words, he [Lim] could be a good corroborator of Floyd. Beyond that, who knows? If Lim's testimony contradicted Floyd's, it is difficult to see Lim as a gov't witness. I've read reports that link Lim to Armstrong, but I don't know anything about the nature of that connection.

Your obsession with Floyd is totally stupid at this point, and it serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the grudge you hold against him.

The people who were called to give testimony have things to say that go beyond Landis. They were not simply brought in to corroborate his testimony for the sake of seeing if he has any credibility. Get off that already.

From all the agencies involved, maybe it's time for you to realize that Landis does have credibility because none of this would have gone this far if people weren't coming forward and saying "Yes, Landis told the truth, and by the way, here is what I know..."

 

[Andynonomous]

True justice = "truth"

Justice, for some, means a fair trial based upon established procedures involving admissible evidence.

And justice to some others (like me), means that the truth shall prevail, and those that lied, cheated, and stole, will be punished.

 

[Polish]

The average American has no idea of what the investigation is about. Their primary source of info has been Armstrong's media campaign.

If the charges are filed and include multiple charges of financial misconduct opinions will change.

How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does he get a pass on all crimes or just the doping ones?

I think Lance should get the Pass on ALL crimes - not just the doping ones.

The message that would send = "if you want to get away with cyclocheating you better damn well work your *** off and do massive charity work"

And bust the slacker *** cyclocheaters like Ricco to reinforce the message. Just my 2 cents.

 

[bigloco]

Which is why it's all going to come as quite a shock - I don't think the "average American" really cares whether or not Armstrong/USPS riders were doping, the average American probably wouldn't be too surprised to learn that they were, and if the investigation were just about doping, I doubt too many people would care.

But charges like fraud and money laundering and so on and so forth, that's an entirely different category, especially when it involves someone with Armstrong's reputation among the general population. Even if he were to skate, just being associated with charges like that would be enough to tarnish his reputation for good.

I'll partially confirm this, at least from my "average American" view...

I'm obviously a cycling fan but don't really give a rip over who's doping. I used to, but now....meh. I'm also a real libertarian, so that likely plays into the matter.


That said, should Armstrong be found guilty of tax evasion or something similar, he'd enter scumbag territory for me.

Right now, he's in the "glad he's gone, but thanks for the 2003 tour" category.

From my "smart guy but not legally savvy" perspective, Fraud (in relation to the team and doping) seems ridiculous... I think the government portraying him as some "mafia drug boss" forcing teammates to drug up or not make the tour squad is also a stretch, too, but we'll see, I guess.