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

[Moose McKnuckles]

OK, I don't have the time to read back and see how we got there.

Calm down guys.

You wouldn't have this problem if you banned people who disagree with me, Francois. Just saying.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Drugs are bad. Very bad. Think Bonds' head got big from steroids?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Cal_Joe, there is a perfectly fine politics thread on the site. You are injecting far too much off topic political commentary for a LA thread into those posts.

To be fair it is the all things Lance thread and Polish one of the most prolific posters on the thread has this little dream where Lance one day becomes President of the United States. Not hard to follow how we got to this point.
I am more curious to find out where Joe is going with this. Is he going to say that it is OK for Lance to be a liar and a fraud because everyone was doing it?

 

[flicker]

Maybe I am being too soft on Milken, but I have followed his story for a long time. The $600m annual compensation still gets my attention (or was it $400m, either way a whole lot of cash).

He did pay $200 million in fines, $400 million in restitution. May Lance be so lucky!

My sense of Milken, and I could be wrong, was that the insider trading was as much about trying to keep his creation, the junk bond market, alive as it was about personal profit.

We can give Milken some credit for the existence of the cell phone market and cheap long-distance rates. When the famous McKinsey study said that there would be less than 1m customers by 2000, Milken helped finance McCaw the cell phone pioneer, as well as MCI the long-distance provider.

There is a big difference in my mind between Lance and Milken, or even Mortenson and Milken. I don't think Milken is using charity as a personal promotional device in the way that these two are.

On the positive side, Milken literally created the junk bond market. Lance did not create cycling no matter how much Polish tries to convince everyone otherwise.

Then, of course, Milken almost destroyed his own creation. Lance may yet permanently damage the sport, of course, and there is some parallel there.

Milken did not start his charity before being charged and indicted. He did not hide behind it when he went to jail.

Yes, he had done philanthropic acts before falling from grace. Yes, he is extremely wealthy. But has more or less committed his life as a known felon to charity.

There is no self-promotional 'hope rides again' BS with Milken. No megalomaniacal attempt to take over a whole sport or industry.

If Lance is indicted, prosecuted and jailed. Then, after he is released, admits his errors in judgement. And, after all of that, performs true philanthropy without skimming off the top. Then, maybe, I will see a bit more of a parallel.

That is a long way off, and I am not holding my breath.

Dave.

Micheal milken is a destroyer of pensions and peoples investments. No comparison with Lance. Lance destroyed our hopes and dreams. He shrivlled our special purpose.us.

 

[Polish]

To be fair it is the all things Lance thread and Polish one of the most prolific posters on the thread has this little dream where Lance one day becomes President of the United States. Not hard to follow how we got to this point.
I am more curious to find out where Joe is going with this. Is he going to say that it is OK for Lance to be a liar and a fraud because everyone was doing it?

President of the USA?
Set your sights a bit higher...

I like to pretend Lance will someday be World Leader!

Check out this video...
Novitsky has a nice moody baritone don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KCxfG32Gts

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

...I am more curious to find out where Joe is going with this. Is he going to say that it is OK for Lance to be a liar and a fraud because everyone was doing it?

No matter, as that would be a Tu quoque logical fallacy, and significant of nothing (other than to identify the chamois-sniffers).

 

[Benotti69]

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.

Great Post

This needs to be brought to this part of the thread for those who are not bothered reading the whole thread or from where they left it and just click back a few pages.

Sums it up very well indeed.

 

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by JRTinMA
I eat pieces of **** like you for breakfast.

Uhm, good one?

With that diet he wants to take you to breakfast? Lord what kind of bar did you meet him in and what did you drink?

 

[sniper]

President of the USA?
Set your sights a bit higher...

I like to pretend Lance will someday be World Leader!

Check out this video...
Novitsky has a nice moody baritone don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KCxfG32Gts

great parallel.

 

[peloton]

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.

This.
+1000

excellent post!

 

[ChrisE]

Doug Miller runs the case. His office has the highest conviction rate in the nation.

So what is the problem here? Let's save all this BS and just throw him in jail...screw the bill of rights.

You guys seem to seriously think that all of these rumors about what he will be indicted for will ultimately stick, if the majority don't get thrown out beforehand, on a jury. You guys are really putting your faith in this, after what we have seen in the past with blatantly obvious guilty famous athletes, one example being a fricking murderer.

Still, the basic case looks to be based upon the little old punchline "never tested positive", because if he didn't all of this other stuff about drug trafficing, fraud, etc. means zilch if one clown on that jury buys it.

This random jury guy will think why would he be doing all of this other stuff, that surrounds the basic principle of using PED's in bicycle racing, if he wasn't taking PED's? I of course am assuming that the investigation is not going somewhere else like outright tax evasion by tailwind on other matters, for example, or if there is a mass turning on him by others which I am not convinced there is.....still this is Lance frickn Armstrong here. He's gonna bring the heavy artillary with his unlimited wealth.

You guys need to shake yourself and look at things a little different, and see how famous athletes are treated different by juries than the average criminal that contributes to Doug Miller's conviction rate. The little party in here running around giving eachother high-fives after a misguided article is posted by CN may ultimately be in for a huge letdown.

 

[Benotti69]

bla blah blah

Rich dope dealer gets off, cause he never got busted using the stuff himself! hahahahahahah....dream on. Bet your hoping for a scarface ending for Gunderson.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

So what is the problem here? Let's save all this BS and just throw him in jail...screw the bill of rights.

You guys seem to seriously think that all of these rumors about what he will be indicted for will ultimately stick, if the majority don't get thrown out beforehand, on a jury. You guys are really putting your faith in this, after what we have seen in the past with blatantly obvious guilty famous athletes, one example being a fricking murderer.

Still, the basic case looks to be based upon the little old punchline "never tested positive", because if he didn't all of this other stuff about drug trafficing, fraud, etc. means zilch if one clown on that jury buys it.

This random jury guy will think why would he be doing all of this other stuff, that surrounds the basic principle of using PED's in bicycle racing, if he wasn't taking PED's? I of course am assuming that the investigation is not going somewhere else like outright tax evasion by tailwind on other matters, for example, or if there is a mass turning on him by others which I am not convinced there is.....still this is Lance frickn Armstrong here. He's gonna bring the heavy artillary with his unlimited wealth.

You guys need to shake yourself and look at things a little different, and see how famous athletes are treated different by juries than the average criminal that contributes to Doug Miller's conviction rate. The little party in here running around giving eachother high-fives after a misguided article is posted by CN may ultimately be in for a huge letdown.

I imagine the samples being properly tested, and the evidence filed under "F for Ferrari" might convince all but the most retarted or blind jury member that Mr Armstrong might also have been using what he was selling / trafficking / buying / avoiding tax on etc etc

 

[Anonymous]

I imagine the samples being properly tested, and the evidence filed under "F for Ferrari" might convince all but the most retarted or blind jury member that Mr Armstrong might also have been using what he was selling / trafficking / buying / avoiding tax on etc etc

Unfortunately, in a case like this, that is not a remote possibility. This is what happened with Bonds. Contrary to the smoke thrown up about the Bonds case, it was not lost because the evidence was not sufficient. It was lost because of stupid jurors. The fact that it was 50/50 on the first straw poll and they ended up getting him on one count shows that the reality is that he was just lucky that he had jurors who had made up their mind before the trial most likely.

The big thing Tex has going for him is the LAF. Grandma' ain't gonna' have an easy time bustin' that nice clean-cut white boy who has that charity that cures cancer. People who have cancer can't be bad. It's a fact, people in wheel chairs, the blind and deaf, small people, and people with cancer are all great people who are incapable of doing bad things...

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Unfortunately, in a case like this, that is not a remote possibility. This is what happened with Bonds. Contrary to the smoke thrown up about the Bonds case, it was not lost because the evidence was not sufficient. It was lost because of stupid jurors. The fact that it was 50/50 on the first straw poll and they ended up getting him on one count shows that the reality is that he was just lucky that he had jurors who had made up their mind before the trial most likely.

The big thing Tex has going for him is the LAF. Grandma' ain't gonna' have an easy time bustin' that nice clean-cut white boy who has that charity that cures cancer. People who have cancer can't be bad. It's a fact, people in wheel chairs, the blind and deaf, small people, and people with cancer are all great people who are incapable of doing bad things...

Jurors are often smarter than we think.....many of the least likely ones often take surprising conditions during a trial (my old man's a judge)

And in any case, good deeds for cancer sufferers can't be taken into consideration regarding guilt / innocence if there is concrete evidence of wrongdoing, right? That can only be used as litigation appealing for leniency in sentencing, right?

I mean, surely no jury could have their meeting and agree that the evidence is indisputable that the defendant is guilty, but they will find not guilty because they like him?

 

[ChrisE]

Jurors are often smarter than we think.....many of the least likely ones often take surprising conditions during a trial (my old man's a judge)

And in any case, good deeds for cancer sufferers can't be taken into consideration regarding guilt / innocence if there is concrete evidence of wrongdoing, right? That can only be used as litigation appealing for leniency in sentencing, right?

I mean, surely no jury could have their meeting and agree that the evidence is indisputable that the defendant is guilty, but they will find not guilty because they like him?

Why are you even trying to rationalize why people make stupid decisions, regardless of the evidence presented?

IT IS A FACT THIS HAPPENS! You have 2 perfect examples given, yet you and people like benotti laugh at it and try to rationalize around why it won't or can't happen.

Surely this blah, blah, surely that blah blah the jury will ultimately find him guilty on all of this, whatever "this" is. It is more than a remote possibility, as TFF points out, that he will get off regardless.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Cal_Joe, there is a perfectly fine politics thread on the site. You are injecting far too much off topic political commentary for a LA thread into those posts.

Apologies, Francois. My intent was not to inject politics. The book deals with sports, finance, and politics; it just happened that the most eye-catching snippets of the review concerned politicians.

<snip> I am more curious to find out where Joe is going with this. Is he going to say that it is OK for Lance to be a liar and a fraud because everyone was doing it?

No, he is not.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Why are you even trying to rationalize why people make stupid decisions, regardless of the evidence presented?

IT IS A FACT THIS HAPPENS! You have 2 perfect examples given, yet you and people like benotti laugh at it and try to rationalize around why it won't or can't happen.

Surely this blah, blah, surely that blah blah the jury will ultimately find him guilty on all of this, whatever "this" is. It is more than a remote possibility, as TFF points out, that he will get off regardless.

But you're assuming there will be NO evidence, testimony etc that actually shows LA to be the Sociopath we all know he is - that the jury decision will be based on evidence of law breaking vs so much good done for so many people, and that dishonesty and mendacious actions will not make any impression on the jurors....

if someone like Tyler H testifies, en educated, sensitive and likeable man could make an impression on the jury, and his story could paint LA in a very very dark shadow.

 

[Cloxxki]

I just saw an imaginary tv commercial. You see flashed of dictators, serial killers, wife beaters, burglers, etc. And just the words "Cancer doesn't discriminate, either way".

 

[bigloco]

But you're assuming there will be NO evidence, testimony etc that actually shows LA to be the Sociopath we all know he is - that the jury decision will be based on evidence of law breaking vs so much good done for so many people, and that dishonesty and mendacious actions will not make any impression on the jurors....

if someone like Tyler H testifies, en educated, sensitive and likeable man could make an impression on the jury, and his story could paint LA in a very very dark shadow.

I'm not sure if you're Dutch or not, but you have more faith in the American jury pool than I do.

Since we aren't sure what charges the potential prosecutors have planned, we can only speculate....but since we're "armchairing" about medical diagnoses and jury selection, I'm gonna guess that the likelihood of acquittal on charges involving RICO statutes pertaining to drug trafficking and fraud are high while any evidence re: Tax Evasion would be low and prove quite difficult for senor Armstrong.

 

[Race Radio]

babble

You are no making any sense Chris

 

[ChrisE]

But you're assuming there will be NO evidence, testimony etc that actually shows LA to be the Sociopath we all know he is - that the jury decision will be based on evidence of law breaking vs so much good done for so many people, and that dishonesty and mendacious actions will not make any impression on the jurors....

if someone like Tyler H testifies, en educated, sensitive and likeable man could make an impression on the jury, and his story could paint LA in a very very dark shadow.

No, I wrote this:

Why are you even trying to rationalize why people make stupid decisions, regardless of the evidence presented?

Plus, addressing your post whatever you may think those other "good" things you list do play a part, outside of evidence presented. Years of police brutality on minorities played a part in finding OJ not guilty. That is a FACT. What does that have to do with whether or not he is guilty of killing 2 people?

 

[ChrisE]

You are no making any sense Chris

Translation: RR puts hands over ears and covers eyes.....Chris is screwing up RR's dream of seeing LA behind bars, by pointing out how this is not a sure thing.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

No, I wrote this:



Plus, addressing your post whatever you may think those other "good" things you list do play a part, outside of evidence presented. Years of police brutality on minorities played a part in finding OJ not guilty. That is a FACT. What does that have to do with whether or not he is guilty of killing 2 people?

there certainly have not been years of brutality from anti-doping authorities against Lance's teams.

and i doubt there will be anything as compelling in court as a glove not fitting etc.

 

[bigloco]

there certainly have not been years of brutality from anti-doping authorities against Lance's teams.

and i doubt there will be anything as compelling in court as a glove not fitting etc.

Are you kidding?!? HE HAS BEEN Tested 500 times in the last X years! They have repeatedly woken the team up in the early morning to test them. They actually watch him strip down and urinate in a cup! And for what? HE HAS NEVER Tested positive!

/takes off my crazy lawyer hat

If i'm the defense team, one of my questions to potential jurors: "have you ever used the term 'freedom fry'"