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

[thehog]

It is literally becoming Lance's word against "everyone else's."

The style of words used remind me of those guys who stand out the front of train stations claiming the world is going to end; - "...extraordinarily shoddy, to the point of being reckless and unprofessional, or a vicious hit-and-run job"


- "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and a finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

 

[Topangarider]

The style of words used remind me of those guys who stand out the front of train stations claiming the world is going to end; - "...extraordinarily shoddy, to the point of being reckless and unprofessional, or a vicious hit-and-run job"


- "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and a finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

+1. So right you are on this one ... Now where is the next confessor!!??

 

[thirteen]

Lance and the art of denial:

It's certainly possible Armstrong is telling the truth. If he isn't, it's no surprise he's sticking so adamantly to his story.

In his novel "The Secret Man," which revealed FBI official Mark Felt as Deep Throat of Watergate fame, Bob Woodward offers his view on Felt's enduring public denial of his identity.

"He was like a witness who had told his story a dozen or a hundred times," Woodward wrote. "He had to stick to it, and over the years, he had perhaps even come to believe it."

 

[Microchip]

ABC News Story Missing a Part

"Saugy said his lab did find suspicious levels of EPO in four urine samples from the race Armstrong won, but he didn't know if any belonged to the seven-time Tour de France winner."

Then what came after that comment?? That doesn't mean they weren't his. Or is it that when someone tests positive the lab makes an announcement that they have a positive and would the right rider stand up please. That was a half-story reporting.

 

[Zweistein]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=13731949 - I'd say its time for the next Postie to drop. Come on then. Hurry up.
- -
Attorneys for Lance Armstrong have demanded an on-air apology from "60 Minutes" after the head of Switzerland's anti-doping laboratory denied allegations the seven-time Tour de France winner tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

In a letter sent Wednesday to CBS News Chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager, lawyer Elliot Peters said the May 22 segment about Armstrong was built on a series of falsehoods, and he accused the reputable CBS show of sloppy journalism.

"In the cold light of morning your story was either extraordinarily shoddy, to the point of being reckless and unprofessional, or a vicious hit-and-run job," Peters wrote. "In either case, a categorical on-air apology is required."

CBS News spokesman Kevin Tedesco said Wednesday he couldn't immediately comment on the letter, but said: "We consider this the most thorough investigation into doping in the sport of cycling ever done."

He has my apology.

Lance I am sorry that you perjured yourself by denying that you used performance enhancing products. Also, I must confess. I am getting tired of being tired of your denials.

 

[BotanyBay]

Every so often, at the bottom of the cnn.com home page, I see that Demand Media is placing "interesting" Livestrong links. In today's case:

"How to file for Divorce with children"
and
"Divorce rights of a father"

Way to Live Strong Lance! (not).

 

[Cimacoppi49]

He has my apology.

Lance I am sorry that you perjured yourself by denying that you used performance enhancing products. Also, I must confess. I am getting tired of being tired of your denials.

Big, big mistake to take on 60 min. You can smell the desperation. Now what's Lance going to do? Sue 60min??!! Lance, can you say deposition, trial testimony and cross-examination?? ROTFLMAO!!!!

 

[Topangarider]

Big, big mistake to take on 60 min. You can smell the desperation. Now what's Lance going to do? Sue 60min??!! Lance, can you say deposition, trial testimony and cross-examination?? ROTFLMAO!!!!

Not so sure it's a bad PR tactic. His criticism of 60 MN is getting plenty of press and there's no cost to him unless the show hits back. But could it really get worse? What can 60 MN do except stand behind their reporting with a strong statement? The latest smoke and mirrors from LA provides more kool aid (sorry to mix metaphors) for his fans

 

[Anonymous]

Big, big mistake to take on 60 min. You can smell the desperation. Now what's Lance going to do? Sue 60min??!! Lance, can you say deposition, trial testimony and cross-examination?? ROTFLMAO!!!!

+1

I was just thinking the same thing.

If Peters had any balls (which he does not) he wouldn't settle for a public apology (which will not happen) but he'd file suit against CBS.

This is desperation Public Relations and it is all going to blow up in Lance's face.

BTW, where has Fabiani been??

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems as though this LA is in quick sand... the more he struggles the deeper in he gets.

 

[Merckx index]

Shouldn't Peters demand an apology from Rivier, or whoever it was who gave the sworn statement to the FBI? How about an apology from the FBI for even accepting such a "hit and run' statement without first taking the care that LA's team did to demonstrate that it had to be false? And shouldn't Howman apologize for implying that the story was true merely by commenting on it?

Maybe the technician who scored the result as suspicious ought to apologize, too. Or maybe, in an act of generosity, LA could amend his statement. I never tested positive. I might have tested suspicious, but I never tested positive.

 

[Topangarider]

I'm seeking some clarification on the source(s) 60 mn used for the Swiss lab portion of their story.

Is Saugy the one who 60 mn says gave testimony to them asserting that the UCI arranged the meeting betw the lab and LA/JB and that UCI wanted the matter to go away? Or, as some forum posters have argued, was Saugy not the lab director at the time - suggesting that there's another lab worker who has cooperated with the investigation (60 mn identified their source as being the lab's director). I'm confused about whether Saugy has changed his story, 60 mn got facts wrong (really doubt that) or there's another source.

 

[El Oso]

http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/May_31_Letter.pdf

Note that the letter is written by the new attorney

 

[veganrob]

http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/May_31_Letter.pdf

Note that the letter is written by the new attorney

Hahahaha LMFAO. How much money did it cost to draw that letter up? OMG, if that is the best they can do Lance is really on a whole lotta trouble.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/May_31_Letter.pdf

Note that the letter is written by the new attorney

The problem CBS has it their history of occasionally airing stories that have not been completely vetted. I hope this new crop of reporters takes the vetting process seriously and did their foot work on this one. The letter is amazing in it's hyperbole, but that is what lawyers do; yell really loud and obnoxiously until the matter is resolved and then act like they never said a word.

 

[redtreviso]

Lance and Levi new

Lance and Levi ,,.,.new NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVsp4X7Y8VI

 

[VeloCity]

Not so sure it's a bad PR tactic. His criticism of 60 MN is getting plenty of press and there's no cost to him unless the show hits back. But could it really get worse? What can 60 MN do except stand behind their reporting with a strong statement? The latest smoke and mirrors from LA provides more kool aid (sorry to mix metaphors) for his fans

Unless 60 Mins chooses to release a whole lot of damning evidentiary stuff to back up it's story, in which case I could see this really blowing up in Armstrong's face. I would guess that 60 Mins is not going to run a story like this, ie about an American cultural icon, without being absolutely sure that it could back up its claims. And that they did run the piece probably means that they are confident that they can back it up.

 

[thehog]

http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/May_31_Letter.pdf

Note that the letter is written by the new attorney

Interesting to note they're still using the the term "positive"result. That gives them room to move.

I also thought "charitable contributions" was a nice touch! Thanks Lance!

Thankfully 60 Minutes will be airing some more revelations this week to counter this BS.

Now for all you legal eagles out there there's one massive mistake in the letter....... when you issue a "demand" such as this you request an action in the legal context. Not an p!ssy apology. You make some form of legal assertion such as "If an apology is not forthcoming by x date we'll be forced to file a suit in the civil crimes tribunal blah blah blah" - This is just hot air nothing else. The 60 Minutes legal will just laugh at it. Thats about all you can do with it. It doesn't actually say anything.

I'd say more press release than anything else.

 

[thehog]

Note that the letter is written by the new attorney

http://www.kvn.com/

I love the law firm's byline - "....or just make the problem go away".

Shiesse!!

 

[Merckx index]

I'm seeking some clarification on the source(s) 60 mn used for the Swiss lab portion of their story.

Is Saugy the one who 60 mn says gave testimony to them asserting that the UCI arranged the meeting betw the lab and LA/JB and that UCI wanted the matter to go away? Or, as some forum posters have argued, was Saugy not the lab director at the time - suggesting that there's another lab worker who has cooperated with the investigation (60 mn identified their source as being the lab's director). I'm confused about whether Saugy has changed his story, 60 mn got facts wrong (really doubt that) or there's another source.

The short answer seems to be no one knows. The lab director at the time was Laurent Rivier, who one would think would be the author of the sworn statement. But AFAIK, this hasn’t been confirmed. 60 m said only that the “lab director” gave this statement, not which director, past or current. Also, Saugy said he met with the FBI last year and specifically discussed suspicious samples with them. He seemed to be implying, though never saying, that he gave that sworn statement.

So either a) Saugy gave the sworn statement, and 60 m has misconstrued it; or b) Rivier gave the ( or another) sworn statement. But if b), why would Saugy not know about this? Saugy’s intent seemed to be to deny 60 m allegations. Is he possibly completely in the dark about another incident, which Rivier knows about and is not commenting on publicly?

 

[sniper]

The short answer seems to be no one knows. The lab director at the time was Laurent Rivier, who one would think would be the author of the sworn statement. But AFAIK, this hasn’t been confirmed. 60 m said only that the “lab director” gave this statement, not which director, past or current. Also, Saugy said he met with the FBI last year and specifically discussed suspicious samples with them. He seemed to be implying, though never saying, that he gave that sworn statement.

So either a) Saugy gave the sworn statement, and 60 m has misconstrued it; or b) Rivier gave the ( or another) sworn statement. But if b), why would Saugy not know about this? Saugy’s intent seemed to be to deny 60 m allegations. Is he possibly completely in the dark about another incident, which Rivier knows about and is not commenting on publicly?

whatabout c) they both gave a sworn statement? seems most plausible to me.

 

[Topangarider]

The short answer seems to be no one knows. The lab director at the time was Laurent Rivier, who one would think would be the author of the sworn statement. But AFAIK, this hasn’t been confirmed. 60 m said only that the “lab director” gave this statement, not which director, past or current. Also, Saugy said he met with the FBI last year and specifically discussed suspicious samples with them. He seemed to be implying, though never saying, that he gave that sworn statement.

So either a) Saugy gave the sworn statement, and 60 m has misconstrued it; or b) Rivier gave the ( or another) sworn statement. But if b), why would Saugy not know about this? Saugy’s intent seemed to be to deny 60 m allegations. Is he possibly completely in the dark about another incident, which Rivier knows about and is not commenting on publicly?

Thanks. Hopefully we will know the answers soon. A response from
60 mn would be great.

 

[D-Queued]

http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/May_31_Letter.pdf

Note that the letter is written by the new attorney

Interesting to note they still using the the term "positive"result. That gives them room to move.

I also thought "charitable contributions" was a nice touch as well! Thanks Lance!

Thankfully 60 Minutes will be airing some more revelations this week to counter this BS.

Now for all you legal eagles out there there's one massive mistake in the letter....... when you issue "demand" such as this you request an action in the legal context. Not an p!ssy apology. You make some form of legal assertion such as "If an apology is not forthcoming by x date we'll be forced to file a suit in the civil crimes tribunal blah blah blah" - This is just hot air nothing else. The 60 Minutes legal will just laugh at it. Thats about all you can do with it. It doesn't actually say anything. I'd say more press release than anything else.

60 Minutes lives for this.

Seriously. Follow up segments are the icing on the cake, and right out of Marshall McLuhan's 'The media is the message'.

There is already a ton of video on the editing floor, and more opportunities ahead. How many other teammates and associates will be emboldened by Tyler's appearance? Plenty.

They LOVE to do follow-up pieces. Think of the PR lead-in that they now have with the statements provided in the letter.

All they have to do to demonstrate 'balanced' journalism is read from this letter. Then, they can provide the contrast of reality.

They will crucify Lance with his own words, all with the tic, tic, tic, in the background.

**** Pound said it long ago now, but the louder the protest the bigger the doper.

"The reaction is always that the whistleblower is either nuts or wrong or has a grudge. Usually the louder that kind of noise is, the more likely it is that the whistleblower is 100 per cent right

In fact, pulling from that same story, perhaps we have all we need for a 60 minutes follow up right here:

"The testing during the Games will be absolutely state of the art. If you try to cheat there, you've either got to be stupid or think that you're not going to get caught, which in itself is stupid. Samples will be frozen and kept for eight years and re-tested. That's how the French discovered EPO in Lance Armstrong's urine in the 1999 Tour de France.

"There were no tests for EPO at the time even though people were pretty sure it was being used. When a test was developed for it, they went back and tested the frozen samples and found EPO and through a series of other circumstances, they found EPO with Lance Armstrong.

"Cheats will be caught."

Lance, you should be proud. You have long set the example.

Dave.

 

[rzombie1988]

Do you have the 2010 TdF edition of this? Those were hilarious.

 

[frenchfry]

Unless I missed something, Tyler said that Armstrong told him that he had the positive fixed. The letter suggests that somehow Tyler was speaking from first hand experience, which isn't at all the same thing. There are also a lot of other leaps in logic that might make for good PR aimed at the believers, but don't withstand a minimum of scrutiny.

I agree that it will take a lot more than this to make Lancey-poo's problem go away, and if 60 minutes pulls out the other proof they certainly have but didn't show for timing then this could backfire. It seems to me that the newly hired expensive lawyers are attempting to justify their retainer, they must realise by now this is a lost case.

 

[D-Queued]

Unless I missed something, Tyler said that Armstrong told him that he had the positive fixed. The letter suggests that somehow Tyler was speaking from first hand experience, which isn't at all the same thing. There are also a lot of other leaps in logic that might make for good PR aimed at the believers, but don't withstand a minimum of scrutiny.

I agree that it will take a lot more than this to make Lancey-poo's problem go away, and if 60 minutes pulls out the other proof they certainly have but didn't show for timing then this could backfire. It seems to me that the newly hired expensive lawyers are attempting to justify their retainer, they must realise by now this is a lost case.

How much do you think that this one letter alone cost?

I am thinking at least $10/word.

Dave.