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

[JRTinMA]

This is becomeing tiresome.

No one said he was clean, but using hematocrit for anything other than internet speculation means absolutely nothing. When a normal human being, randomly pulled off of any street in any city, can have a crit of 52%, then Pantani's number serves no scientific purpose. If it serves no purpose re: doping sanctions, then it serves no purpose in this discussion.

It's no better than saying anyone with a certain body fat content that falls as an outlyer in a general population is a doper.

I want to catch dopers. I don't want to use some metric that is about as useful as a roll of toilet paper to do so.

You know little about the crit of cyclists.

 

[JRTinMA]

No you are not. Pantani did not fail a dope test, ever.

Because if you want to get in to the 'degrees' of it as per your point then that means I can introduce Armstrong visiting Ferrari in march of 1999, long before the Giro.

Go ahead, he did it to dope i suspect. No degrees.

 

[JRTinMA]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Stop with the personal comments and get on topic.

Susan

 

[D-Queued]

...race-baiting deleted...

I believe you said in your last post you would not research my posting and then you did. What does that make you?

I was not caught in a lie, Frank or Frankie its the same. Only one sent money to Fuentes. To suggest otherwise is just BS.

You are right.

I said one thing, and then changed my mind about that. I was collecting your recent statements about Frankie & Betsy, and the Schleck thing was an easy edit to search terms with a less than surprising result.

However, your posting record should not have been any sort of surprise to you. Should it?

Thus, why race-bait?

Dave.

 

[Velodude]

A useless rationale. As useless as any rationale Arrmstrong would devise.

I suggest you read "Rough Ride" by Paul Kimmage. A TdF domestique in the 1980s (and currently a UK sports journalist in LA's mental black book) who used the same rationale to do PEDs as FA.

LA mildly berating Paul Kimmage in public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fV-48DT3E&NR=1

 

[jackwolf]

It's her, and as always a pleasure to read her posts.

Hiya, Betsy, here's an admirer from the UK wishing you all the best.

 

[thehog]

I suggest you read "Rough Ride" by Paul Kimmage. A TdF domestique in the 1980s (and currently a UK sports journalist in LA's mental black book) who used the same rationale to do PEDs as FA.

LA mildly berating Paul Kimmage in public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fV-48DT3E&NR=1

....and just look at two sitting either side of Lance. The faces of clean cycling?

 

[blackcat]

That one had better be the epic one!

I am hoping for a full re-enactment right down to the phone call from Larner to the argument about Tyler not paying the freaking tip. What a bunch of high falutin limp wristed crud this whole restaurant thing is. And to imagine it may end Lance in some serious trouble is just the capper. This is TruTV for the lipo- and netjet set. Lizard Lick towing has nothing on this trailer trash.

Aspen, French Restaurant, tip, patron ejection, slap fight, girlie men, cctv works in kitchen but not in the front. Just what kind of nouveau riche plastic poseurs are we talking about here?

3rd act. Da Denouement

 

[blackcat]

I dont know why, but I still dont find these funny.

Must just be me. I have the same thing with South Park, the Simpsons and all the rest of it. Just doesnt make me smile, let alone laugh.

yeah, but DimSpace, you could not take a trick in your first iteration as DimSpace, you demonstrated your inability to assess humor and tone.

 

[Anonymous]

yeah, but DimSpace, you could not take a trick in your first iteration as DimSpace, you demonstrated your inability to assess humor and tone.

Oh I have a sense of humour, trust me, and there are a lot of things I find funny.

Just not these videos.

 

[Granville57]

The Curious Case of Lance Armstrong

The Curious Case of Lance Armstrong

http://mansfield.patch.com/articles/the-curious-case-of-lance-armstrong-2

Parents are role models... Coaches are role models... Athletes, for better or worse, are role models...

This leads us into the latest conundrum for the sports fan and parent. What to think about Lance Armstrong?

The question likely to remain is whether or not it matters that all of his good works are built on a myth?

So far, the sports media has largely given Armstrong a pass simply because they like him. This is the way the sports media works. Barry Bonds has a charity, too, but ESPN's Rick Reilly has noted with glee that he now gets to refer to Bonds as a convicted felon. Reilly, of course, has long been an Armstrong groupie and can be found running his public relations campaign on the ESPN website.

So does it matter that it seems likely his dominance was also made possible by EPO? It doesn’t matter if you have cancer and your treatment is more effective because of money Armstrong helped raise.

I wouldn't mind a link on that one.

The lesson has to be cheating is wrong. Always.

Overall, I couldn't agree more.

As always, the article is followed by some interesting comments.

 

[sars1981]

You are?

Therefore you should help all of us...

So here’s my idea. I’ve seen some excellent information posted on this site in relation to Armstrong, his doping practices, his pressure tactics , the women and the dodgy charity. The the spin-bike thread on Livestrong has introduce some interesting debate.

The more I read the more I understand that this important and extremely well researched information hasn’t penetrated the mainstream press or within the thoughts of people. With the possibility of pending trials the Livestrong crew will swing into action.

The postings are in several threads and all over the place. In addition the CyclingNews forum is really only read by cycling fans. The Livestrong shenanigans reach a wider less specific cycling dedicated audience.

So my suggest is we start out own website/blog named “Livewrong”. We keep factual only. Post only detail from linkable/scanned sources. We use it as a repository but also as a source that people can go to, to get an alternate view on the ****e that the Livestrong push out. If we can’t trust our current media and we can’t expect journalist to ask questions beyond those of hero worship then we have to take this into our own hands.

I’m sure once its open to a wider audience others will come forward with more accounts of how things work.

So if we provide the details and the links you can set this up?

Yeah absolutely. If you purchase the domain ( or someone on this website). Like you say the joke might only be "got" by people in the cycling society .. bt yeah I can set it up and I am kee. Anything to make fun of Armstrong/Livewrong PM me if you want to get it going

 

[elizab]

I would like to comment on some of these posts regarding Frankie but I can't. I'm sure I'll be chided but respecting the integrity of the process at hand is more important than making corrections and/or setting people straight on this forum - some with a clear agenda.
I obviously can take criticism as well as the invective hurled at me. You can despise me but argue intelligently; however, that doesn't seem to be the case with some here. Calling Frankie "doper" when his career ended because he wouldn't get on a program is disingenuous. Paul Kimmage is an excellent example. Should Paul be labeled "doper" because he too used but stopped?
Comparing Frankie to Lance in terms of doping is just ignorant. Call Frankie a doper if you feel you must because he wasn't lily white but please acknowledge that he spent the majority of his career clean, refused to get on a program which deemed him "selfish" with a "bad attitude" and ultimately ended his career because he didn't dope but rode clean for the 2000 Tour.

 

[ultimobici]

I would like to comment on some of these posts regarding Frankie but I can't. I'm sure I'll be chided but respecting the integrity of the process at hand is more important than making corrections and/or setting people straight on this forum - some with a clear agenda.
I obviously can take criticism as well as the invective hurled at me. You can despise me but argue intelligently; however, that doesn't seem to be the case with some here. Calling Frankie "doper" when his career ended because he wouldn't get on a program is disingenuous. Paul Kimmage is an excellent example. Should Paul be labeled "doper" because he too used but stopped?
Comparing Frankie to Lance in terms of doping is just ignorant. Call Frankie a doper if you feel you must because he wasn't lily white but please acknowledge that he spent the majority of his career clean, refused to get on a program which deemed him "selfish" with a "bad attitude" and ultimately ended his career because he didn't dope but rode clean for the 2000 Tour.

Great post. Thanks.

If we were to condemn in perpetuity anyone who'd crossed the line legally or morally there'd be very few people considered decent anywhere. My guess is that most of the posters who are vitriolic in their condemnation of you husband, FL or TH would not fare too well under such scrutiny.

To quote Alexander Pope, "To err is human, to forgive is divine"

 

[Anonymous]

I would like to comment on some of these posts regarding Frankie but I can't. I'm sure I'll be chided but respecting the integrity of the process at hand is more important than making corrections and/or setting people straight on this forum - some with a clear agenda.
I obviously can take criticism as well as the invective hurled at me. You can despise me but argue intelligently; however, that doesn't seem to be the case with some here. Calling Frankie "doper" when his career ended because he wouldn't get on a program is disingenuous. Paul Kimmage is an excellent example. Should Paul be labeled "doper" because he too used but stopped?
Comparing Frankie to Lance in terms of doping is just ignorant. Call Frankie a doper if you feel you must because he wasn't lily white but please acknowledge that he spent the majority of his career clean, refused to get on a program which deemed him "selfish" with a "bad attitude" and ultimately ended his career because he didn't dope but rode clean for the 2000 Tour.

The real crime here. How many stories like this are there in the world of pro cycling? Hundreds if not thousands. And while this is not entirely Armstrong's fault, he clearly took this 'game' to a whole new level.

Of the warped who attack you and Frankie for the money taken while 'cheating' I wonder how much was lost by choosing not to cheat? Nary a word from the detractors as I guess all 'dopers' must be the same. Pathetic thinking but then it takes all kinds....

 

[Big Doopie]

The Curious Case of Lance Armstrong

http://mansfield.patch.com/articles/the-curious-case-of-lance-armstrong-2

some commentators/editorials have brought up the question of whether armstrong's cheating devalues the supposed "good work" he has done for cancer research. in other words, does the overall "good" ends justify the "means" -- particularly if you take the (faulty) view that all pros are cheating, so what does it matter.

while i personally believe that this is simply wrong, i can see how others might see it as at least morally debatable.

however, what has been absent -- so far -- in the press, is the accounts of the irreparable harm armstrong has inflicted on many individuals to keep his dirty little secret and protect the myth.

this, in my mind, is what is utterly indefensible. no amount of supposed "good works" justifies actively destroying innocent people's lives, even if the relative numbers are small in comparison.

i am still waiting for editorials that point this out...

 

[thehog]

I got lost when Frankie was confused with the Frank Shleck Fuentes connection!!! That typified the lost battle. The Livestrong dope brigade can't even remember what it is they are arguing about. The argument now so it goes is Kimmidge and Frankie are bad as Lance?

Me wee lass Mrs. A shines strong on a bright blue day. The rest is just worthless *****.

Armstrong has lost it and he's reading about it?

So Lance why don't you address your critics? Loser.

 

[Grand Tourist]

The real crime here. How many stories like this are there in the world of pro cycling? Hundreds if not thousands. And while this is not entirely Armstrong's fault, he clearly took this 'game' to a whole new level.

Quite.

There are 'dopers' & then there are 'dopers'. People like Armstrong leapt enthusiastically into the whole sordid thing without a twinge of guilt whereas plenty of others did it just to keep their heads above water. The big time cheats present everyone else with an almost impossible choice. Get on a 'program', 'enjoy' a mediocre career getting thrashed by lesser riders or walk away from the sport.

The last two choices are pretty horrendous for people who've nearly killed themselves in the amateur ranks just to get into the professional peleton.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

some commentators/editorials have brought up the question of whether armstrong's cheating devalues the supposed "good work" he has done for cancer research. in other words, does the overall "good" ends justify the "means" -- particularly if you take the (faulty) view that all pros are cheating, so what does it matter.

while i personally believe that this is simply wrong, i can see how others might see it as at least morally debatable.

however, what has been absent -- so far -- in the press, is the accounts of the irreparable harm armstrong has inflicted on many individuals to keep his dirty little secret and protect the myth.

this, in my mind, is what is utterly indefensible. no amount of supposed "good works" justifies actively destroying innocent people's lives, even if the relative numbers are small in comparison.

i am still waiting for editorials that point this out...

Give it time.

To the broader public they are slowly accepting that Armstrong is a doper and trying to justify and quantify it in their own minds.
Most comments so far have been from bloggers not the actual main stream media. In many cases they are ignorant to the sport and sheer scale of the doping, fraud and intimidation involved.

A lot of the larger organisations already have Armstrong 'Dopituary' written up and will be able to put his career in context - they are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

[blackcat]

Oh I have a sense of humour, trust me, and there are a lot of things I find funny.

Just not these videos.

I think I liked DimSpace better, even when he thew out his dummy and rattle from the pram, seems he was channeling Millar's proclivity to throw his bike, must be a very Great Briton thing... inform and engage me. There is a free teeth whitening kit in it for ya

 

[blackcat]

*** deleted by mod ***

 

[Anti-doping]

Dopers are dopers. I have always defended you for what you did but I see no degrees of cheating. He became a fraud the day he cheated, you apologists can decide the scale. Talk to the guys left behind who didn't dope and see who's right. Doperssuck

+1

I'm sick & tired of people defending doping cheaters.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That one had better be the epic one!

I am hoping for a full re-enactment right down to the phone call from Larner to the argument about Tyler not paying the freaking tip. What a bunch of high falutin limp wristed crud this whole restaurant thing is. And to imagine it may end Lance in some serious trouble is just the capper. This is TruTV for the lipo- and netjet set. Lizard Lick towing has nothing on this trailer trash.

Aspen, French Restaurant, tip, patron ejection, slap fight, girlie men, cctv works in kitchen but not in the front. Just what kind of nouveau riche plastic poseurs are we talking about here?

There is plenty of material. If Lance was ****ed at Levi for the TOC, I don't know what he's going to think about TDS.

STFU Levi.

 

[VeloCity]

+1

I'm sick & tired of people defending doping cheaters.

Can you honestly say that, if the choice was to dope and be a professional cyclist vs not doping and becoming a used car salesman (or whatever), you wouldn't be tempted? I certainly would be. It sucks that doping has become endemic, absolutely, but I don't think it's fair to condemn riders for doing what the "system" requires.