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

[ChrisE]

A fraud conviction and loss of the 2005 Tour title would help open the settlement.

The Bonds case was amazingly weak and he still was convicted on one count and almost convicted on two others. Armstrong could have 7 people testifying against him with direct witness testimony of doping. That is a big difference. Add a paper trail for the money, witnesses of cash exchanges, and Wonderboy is in serious trouble

Huh? The Bonds jury clowns convicted him on a basis that was completely inconsistent. You don't lie but you obstruct justice. WTH? You got coconut head sitting there after turning into the incredible hulk in 2001. What a bunch of azzhats.

And, I have recently read that one of the jury members said he shouldn't have been found guilty on obstruction of justice due to contradicting answers by Bonds later in that interview, that wasn't allowed to be used in deliberation. Yes, in the Feds we trust or at least hang out hats on in the clinic.

I agree the case against LA appears to be stronger. I don't agree it will be a slam dunk.

 

[Race Radio]

I was just saying, there are other big names the clinic good could gunning at but it seems the clinic only does big tex.

Re the link I posted, a rider says banesto had a doping regimen-it implicates Indurain, who went to Dr F too. Where are all the Indurain threads on clinic?

You know you are making no sense right?

You made the claim there was no evidence, I asked what links you had to support that.....and you give me something about Indurain?

Indurain did not use Ferrari. He also stopped riding 15 years ago. Despite the fact it has been close to two decades since Indurain's Last Tour win there have been multiple threads on Indurain in the clinic.

Like it or not Armstrong has been the largest name in the sport for the last decade. He has also made absurd claims for years. Most rational people would expect that in an English language forum that he would be a common topic. If you feel that other riders are under represented then please open an thread....but based on your posting history Armstrong appears to be your main focus as well.

Regardless, pretending that it is only about doping with Armstrong is comical.

 

[ChrisE]

Doping has become the status quo in the pro peloton. I think if you don't want to play the game (even if you could keep up) then you are kind marginalized and not really part of the "gang".
I want to see Armstrong go down in flames in the hope that this will show others that there can be repercussions beyond an enforced two year holiday while continuing to train with your teammates and getting money from sponsors.
Even more if the UCI are as complicit in this as they seem then I hope that they are dragged down too, or at least removed from the drug testing loop.

Yes, but why is doping the status quo if it gives you no advantage over your competition since they are doped as well, all the while having to avoid detection? Why isn't the mindset to not dope, and do away with all of this other cat/mouse BS?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

that was my understanding. the judge ruled that it was a non-isuue because it wasn't addressed in the contract.

Actually, I was in agreement with you as thats how it was settled.

But of course it was ruled that SCA had to pay out as long as his TdF wins were upheld.
If USADA were to sanction LA and take away any TdF wins it could open up a fresh lawsuit by SCA.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes, but why is doping the status quo if it gives you no advantage over your competition since they are doped as well, all the while having to avoid detection? Why isn't the mindset to not dope, and do away with all of this other cat/mouse BS?

"I'll stop if you stop. OK did you stop yet? Me too, for real. Trust me."

 

[ChrisE]

Actually, I was in agreement with you as thats how it was settled.

But of course it was ruled that SCA had to pay out as long as his TdF wins were upheld.
If USADA were to sanction LA and take away any TdF wins it could open up a fresh lawsuit by SCA.

But only if they took away more than 2, right?

 

[thehog]

Actually, I was in agreement with you as thats how it was settled.

But of course it was ruled that SCA had to pay out as long as his TdF wins were upheld.
If USADA were to sanction LA and take away any TdF wins it could open up a fresh lawsuit by SCA.

TDF titles have nothing to do with it - now.

SCA settled on the evidence presented in the arbitration. Which we now know was presented in a fraudulent manner. They have a case. You can't lie in arbitration. They will re-open the case regardless if Armstrong Tour wins are maintained or not. They will also open civil proceedings. Period.

 

[ChrisE]

"I'll stop if you stop. OK did you stop yet? Me too, for real. Trust me."

So, you are saying it is a form of "mutual destruction" not unlike the USSR and the US during the cold war? We all have nukes so don't jack with us. I guess I can buy that and I never looked at it that way.

I just find the peloton mindset to be fascinating and at the same time confusing.

 

[ChrisE]

TDF titles have nothing to do with it - now.

SCA settled on the evidence presented in the arbitration. Which we now know was presented in a fraudulent manner. They have a case. You can't lie in arbitration. They will re-open the case regardless if Armstrong Tour wins are maintained or not. They will also open civil proceedings. Period.

Hopefully somebody other than your windbag self with legal knowledge will confirm this.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So, you are saying it is a form of "mutual destruction" not unlike the USSR and the US during the cold war? We all have nukes so don't jack with us. I guess I can buy that and I never looked at it that way.

I just find the peloton mindset to be fascinating and at the same time confusing.

And more than that the risk of being caught is not really all that high. I don't understand why they are all willing to pay the money, cycling salaries are already low compared to some other sports.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But only if they took away more than 2, right?

SCA made payouts on
2001 & 2002 - $1.5million
2003 - $3 million.
2004 - $5 million.

As the SOL is 8 years and this was triggered from last year then Tours right back 2002 could be removed.

Also - Tailwind had other bonus schemes with (IIRC) Lloyds of London and one other, who paid out. They could potentially bring a case also.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Hopefully somebody other than your windbag self with legal knowledge will confirm this.

wow...
.......

Hog makes a lot of sense and it may pay to listen

 

[ChrisE]

And more than that the risk of being caught is not really all that high. I don't understand why they are all willing to pay the money, cycling salaries are already low compared to some other sports.

Yet the risk of being caught is higher than 0%. Theoretically the tendency should be for the group to gravitate towards the reality of less stress, yet they all dope and sneak around and are really not obtaining any advantage.

What did TH pay to Fuentes that year? $50k or something? I would imagine he was making $1 million or so, so that would be like $5k to somebody making $100k. Relatively not alot to ensure success.

 

[ChrisE]

wow...
.......

Hog makes a lot of sense and it may pay to listen

That is your opinion. You quoted mine. Isn't this forum stuff fun?

Are you a lawyer and thus can back up what he is claiming, or do you exist to lecture me?

 

[mewmewmew13]

That is your opinion. You quoted mine. Isn't this forum stuff fun?

Are you a lawyer and thus can back up what he is claiming, or do you exist to lecture me?

pretty sure you would respond ChrisE, you're only here for one reason and you know it.


btw, there is no way SCA will let millions go without some kicking. RR backs this up, and most intelligent folks on this forum agree about SCA wanting some retribution.

 

[Merckx index]

So, you are saying it is a form of "mutual destruction" not unlike the USSR and the US during the cold war? We all have nukes so don't jack with us. I guess I can buy that and I never looked at it that way.

I just find the peloton mindset to be fascinating and at the same time confusing.

I don’t think there’s any question this is a major part of it. If there were a totally clean peloton, then any doping at all would immediately provide an edge. So it would just start all over.

But I think there’s an additional factor. Riders just like to go as fast as they can. Think of the changes in technology, e.g., time trial bikes. It’s all legal, it’s all out in the open, no one can get an advantage over others. So why bother one way or another? Because riders want to improve their performance, they want to be as fast as they possibly can be. Really, why not go back to the old steel clunkers of the early part of the last century? It’s a level playing field, in principle at least, regardless of the technology. But the sport wants to see riders on light, fast bikes. They want to see their natural talents enhanced in certain ways.

I think the riders themselves see PEDs in much the same manner, and probably so do many of the organizers. If everyone is using them, they’re not a lot different from advances in bike technology. The problem is that there is a public image that has to be upheld, so riders are put in this incredible situation of cognitive dissonance, where they’re all doing something they feel is moral, yet have to pretend to the outside world that they’re not doing it. Two worlds, two entirely different perspectives and sets of rules.

No wonder guys like Tyler develop serious mental/emotional problems. I’m surprised more riders don’t. At least when someone confesses to a social crime like theft, he knows it’s wrong. He may rationalize to himself that he had to do it, or that it was fair for him to do it, but he knows very well that that it's illegal and that everyone except himself thinks it's wrong. But PEDs are only wrong to the outside world, not to the world of racing these guys are immersed in.

 

[Berzin]

I was just saying, there are other big names the clinic good could gunning at but it seems the clinic only does big tex.

Does it bother you? If it does don't read the threads and move on to something else. Besides, this is the biggest doping scandal probably ever. The fact that your boy is at the center of it is of the essence, like it or not.

Read the link I posted, a rider says banesto had a doping regimen-it implicates Indurain, who went to Dr F too. Where are all the Indurain threads on clinic?

A little history lesson for you, my good man.

It was Thomas Davey who had made initial statements about an organized doping program at Banesto. He was chased under the bus until I believe he retracted his statements against Indruain. Said basically "I never saw Indurain dope" and was driven into anonymity.

Andy Hampsten, in his last year racing in Europe, rode for Banesto for one reason only-as a domestique for Indurain. He didn't make the Tour team and the next year came back to the states.

The story goes that Banesto were disappointed in his form and were displeased by the fact that he would not participate in their doping regimen.

Hampsten of course has never spoken about this publicly, but cyclists are just like anyone else-they talk, and word gets around.

Like anyone else, Hampsten was keenly aware that the omerta juggernaught will plaster any one rider who dares to spit in the soup. He will be isolated, discredited, ridiculed, bullied until he has to go live under a rock.

Just look at all the crap Landis and Hamilton have had to endure. But the storm that is currently brewing is a of a different sort. Never before have cyclists and ex-cyclists been offered immunity by Federal agents for testifying, and the fact that there are so many international government agencies involved really puts the UCI at a loss as to how they can manipulate the proceedings to their benefit or sweep it under the rug.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yet the risk of being caught is higher than 0%. Theoretically the tendency should be for the group to gravitate towards the reality of less stress, yet they all dope and sneak around and are really not obtaining any advantage.

What did TH pay to Fuentes that year? $50k or something? I would imagine he was making $1 million or so, so that would be like $5k to somebody making $100k. Relatively not alot to ensure success.

Kind of a lot though when all that is being ensured is lack of failure. Or maybe they each one think that it is helping them more than the next guy?

That is your opinion. You quoted mine. Isn't this forum stuff fun?

Are you a lawyer and thus can back up what he is claiming, or do you exist to lecture me?

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

 

[blackcat]

Net worth and cash are very different things. Look at the hit he's taking with his Texas home.

I'd be very surprised if he has more than a few million in cash laying around, particularly given bank yeilds, etc. His money is invested and may not be real easy to access. That and he's likely to be a poor loan risk at the monment.

right u r

but hardly ruined will he be

 

[thehog]

wow...
.......

Hog makes a lot of sense and it may pay to listen

Thank-you.

In regards to the SCA case many get hung up on Tour titles and sanctions in the sporting context.

When SCA withheld the final payment from Armstrong his Tour titles where never in doubt. Not in the slightest. So why do we think this is some form of lynch pin for a new case?

SCA wanted clarification from the Armstrong camp on how the Tour titles were obtained. They had read the detail in the Walsh book and had concerns that the Tour titles were in someway obtained by deception - ie the insurance game is a gamble. Armstrong gambling for the payout that he'd win and SCA using risk analysis that he wouldn't. In simple terms if any of us went to an insurance broker and "bet" we win the Tour next year and if we did they'd pay out 5 million. A contract would be drawn up to this respect. Now if you went out on got on a doping program and won without being caught and the insurance broker had to pay out he would have been deceived. ie you willingly took out the contract knowing you were going to cheat to win. Getting caught has nothing to do with it. You didn't follow the rules of the sport thus breaking the contract - you had an unfair advantage over the broker who didn't know you were going to cheat to win.

The doping stipulation in the contract is irrelevant. SCA used the "doping angle" at the arbitration hearing in attempt to prove that Armstrong may have used "deception' to gain the title. Not at any point were they trying to have his titles taken away so they didn't have to pay him - that would need the UCI and ASO. They wanted to established that in respect to the contract had Armstrong won the Tour in a fair, open and honest manner? - ie did he do it in a way which was dishonest thus SCA may have been deceived in a premeditated fashion when the contract was taken out.

The trial was settled prior to its conclusion with parties agreeing to the terms. SCA would pay out the final payment and would not disclose any of the information presented in the case as should the Armstrong camp. SCA had a hard time proving that doping had existed thus if they had been deceived. For this reason they settled. Not the anti-doping clause.

Arbitration is just this - arbitration. Its for both parties to come to an agreement with an independent adjudicator to assist with preserving the legal boundaries and that each party respect the terms of their agreements.

Back to the contract. It didn't need a anti-doping clause. No point. SCA wanted clarification from the Armstrong camp how the Tour titles were won. At this point Armstrong began legal proceedings against SCA.

Knowing what we know now. SCA were not only deceived in the Tour victories but also at the trial. Twice. They have very strong grounds for a civil trial. The contract was taken out in good faith the both parties would act in accordance with its content and in good faith and with "respect" to the rules that the sport is governed by.

Are we sure Armstrong wants to go to an open court with SCA again and explain that doping is ok? that winning by deception was fine? but needed to lie about it at the trial to protect the public? No chance. Or that he didn't actually dope and recall the same set of witnesses again? Goose cooked for around 30million alone on this one.

The department of PP will also look over the proceedings of the trail to initiate criminal proceedings.

 

[frenchfry]

I don’t think there’s any question this is a major part of it. If there were a totally clean peloton, then any doping at all would immediately provide an edge. So it would just start all over.

But I think there’s an additional factor. Riders just like to go as fast as they can. Think of the changes in technology, e.g., time trial bikes. It’s all legal, it’s all out in the open, no one can get an advantage over others. So why bother one way or another? Because riders want to improve their performance, they want to be as fast as they possibly can be. Really, why not go back to the old steel clunkers of the early part of the last century? It’s a level playing field, in principle at least, regardless of the technology. But the sport wants to see riders on light, fast bikes. They want to see their natural talents enhanced in certain ways.

I think the riders themselves see PEDs in much the same manner, and probably so do many of the organizers. If everyone is using them, they’re not a lot different from advances in bike technology. The problem is that there is a public image that has to be upheld, so riders are put in this incredible situation of cognitive dissonance, where they’re all doing something they feel is moral, yet have to pretend to the outside world that they’re not doing it. Two worlds, two entirely different perspectives and sets of rules.

No wonder guys like Tyler develop serious mental/emotional problems. I’m surprised more riders don’t. At least when someone confesses to a social crime like theft, he knows it’s wrong. He may rationalize to himself that he had to do it, or that it was fair for him to do it, but he knows very well that that it's illegal and that everyone except himself thinks it's wrong. But PEDs are only wrong to the outside world, not to the world of racing these guys are immersed in.

No question about it, injecting your body with nausive chemicals is basically the same as drilling out your chainring to save a few grams.

It all boils down to a question of PR.

I think a lot of the "haters" and anti-dopers would do well to pay attention to your insightful analysis.

 

[Exroadman24902]

You know you are making no sense right?

You made the claim there was no evidence, I asked what links you had to support that.....and you give me something about Indurain?

Indurain did not use Ferrari. He also stopped riding 15 years ago. Despite the fact it has been close to two decades since Indurain's Last Tour win there have been multiple threads on Indurain in the clinic.

Like it or not Armstrong has been the largest name in the sport for the last decade. He has also made absurd claims for years. Most rational people would expect that in an English language forum that he would be a common topic. If you feel that other riders are under represented then please open an thread....but based on your posting history Armstrong appears to be your main focus as well.

Regardless, pretending that it is only about doping with Armstrong is comical.

Chill out forum warrior! And face the facts-the riders were more or less all it. Others who won grand tours went to Dr Ferrari as well. You'd think it was only Lance who doped.

 

[Merckx index]

No question about it, injecting your body with nausive chemicals is basically the same as drilling out your chainring to save a few grams.

It all boils down to a question of PR.

I think a lot of the "haters" and anti-dopers would do well to pay attention to your insightful analysis.

It's not my analysis, it's basically what Tyler said. On a program sponsored by Viagra, among others.

Is doping dangerous? If not done carefully--which is more likely to be the case when it's officially banned--yes. But so is racing on light, fast bikes. The worst casualty of the Giro did not result from doping.

I'm not trying to defend doping, I'm trying to explain why so many riders doing it are so resistant to talking about it that only the threat of jail will get them to speak up.

 

[Race Radio]

Chill out forum warrior! And face the facts-the riders were more or less all it. Others who won grand tours went to Dr Ferrari as well. You'd think it was only Lance who doped.

Again you are confused. This has moved far beyond doping

 

[Hugh Januss]

It's not my analysis, it's basically what Tyler said. On a program sponsored by Viagra, among others.

Is doping dangerous? If not done carefully--which is more likely to be the case when it's officially banned--yes. But so is racing on light, fast bikes. The worst casualty of the Giro did not result from doping.

I'm not trying to defend doping, I'm trying to explain why so many riders doing it are so resistant to talking about it that only the threat of jail will get them to speak up.

As I recall the sense of my own mortality and the ability to go against what I perceived as the "common wisdom" of my peers were not my most finely honed traits when I was young.