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

[Cimacoppi49]

I feel like I am at a club meeting.
so the way it works for you is that Benetton should put the looms on high before a race. Target should stock the shelves as Franchitti rocks their logo. Do you think Mapei,Suanier Duval or Liquigas see products jump off the shelves after a good race? I can't guaranty that the relationship between Armstrong/Trek was a lucrative one but I am sure they know it was/is.
Branding my brother branding. Avis rent a car has had name association with the NY Yankees for 20+ years, I doubt they are looking for a direct link to sponsorship dollars. I have raced with guys that thought that our kits had some impact on land sales in S.Cal or Powerbars flying off the shelf.

I would love to see you at a meeting of Kelly Benefit Strategies, United Health Care or Team Type 1, what an eye opener. You may want to look a little deeper into the relationship that the sponsor is trying to gain rather than the one you perceive they want.
A more fun example for you to live is do a few races in Belgium where you sign up in a bar, the guy taking your money and license is 60 years old, fat and smoking a cigar. He hands you a race number while exhaling. The associations you assume are often times misplaced, while still others are subconscious by design.
Please call Skil-Shimano and asks them to count saws and router increases after Kittel's magical year

Dang, there was a line at Home Despot this morning waiting for a Skil router delivery.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Do you really think they're the same? You have to have serious talent to win the Tdf even doped. Yes they could have a better doctor (though I don't believe any of the other people Ferrari helped won the tour), but it still shows amazing consistency.

I think Bernie kept his scam going far longer than seven years. He was the best in his field of criminal expertise. The parallel to Armstrong is quite clear.

 

[Velodude]

Do you really think they're the same? You have to have serious talent to win the Tdf even doped. Yes they could have a better doctor (though I don't believe any of the other people Ferrari helped won the tour), but it still shows amazing consistency.

No other "patient" of Ferrari won the Tour coz Armstrong had an exclusivity arrangement with Ferrari. Ferrari could not prepare another GC contender.

[source: Lance Armstrong's War by Daniel Cole 2005 - written and published with the approval of the subject]

 

[Cloxxki]

It's not a bad point. It's uncanny that Armstrong attracts so many liars as friends.

The simple answer will be that the lying started only AFTER Armstrong started showing off his awesomeness. Jealousy is such a sad condition...
What remains is Armstrong's inability to keep loyal friends. He's not the world's first awesome sportsman, you know.

 

[BroDeal]

What is with all the new, low post Armstrong defenders? It looks like somebody is preparing for the big day.

 

[Velodude]

What is with all the new, low post Armstrong defenders? It looks like somebody is preparing for the big day.

They are joining the likes of fatandfast and Polish by

 

[fatandfast]

Better do a search before mouthing off the well worn disproven argument that LA would've won the TdF because he had bags of talent. FAIL. He had bags of EPO. LA never was a GT winner before Ferarri's doping program.

No level playing field argument gonna work either.

there is certainly no rational argument that can take place, the Ferarri rev up,super charged speculation may be correct but uncorrectable in the history books. Lance getting popped for tax or some other financial wrong doing will still not prove your point. The field can't be leveled because it has been plowed over and turned into a shopping mall.
Depending on your time line when Lance was clocking good ITT splits as a new racer or he won worlds a couple years into his career your story doesn't hold up. Kind of like Wiggins finding his form in the mountains, it doesn't add up from resume entries but "real life" results are different. You may hope for total dismissal of any and all Armstrong wins, or begrudgingly settle for an * next to his results, but it's just a dream, just hope, not "real life".

I totally understand that Lance wears the antihero suit better than almost anyone but that is another issue. **** Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice all wrote books trying to place WMDs in Iraq,just cause you say it, write it or hope it, don't make it so. Lance's wins are final, unfortunate for your point of view but factual.

remember I am not Polish's stoker, I think Lance used along with everybody else, but he didn't get caught just like all the others guys that didn't. Just part of the sport, like listening to older athletes complain about current salaries, that was then this is now. Armstrong squeaked out by a hair, he is the one that got away

 

[Dr. Maserati]

there is certainly no rational argument that can take place, the Ferarri rev up,super charged speculation may be correct but uncorrectable in the history books. Lance getting popped for tax or some other financial wrong doing will still not prove your point. The field can't be leveled because it has been plowed over and turned into a shopping mall.
Depending on your time line when Lance was clocking good ITT splits as a new racer or he won worlds a couple years into his career your story doesn't hold up. Kind of like Wiggins finding his form in the mountains, it doesn't add up from resume entries but "real life" results are different. You may hope for total dismissal of any and all Armstrong wins, or begrudgingly settle for an * next to his results, but it's just a dream, just hope, not "real life".

I totally understand that Lance wears the antihero suit better than almost anyone but that is another issue. **** Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice all wrote books trying to place WMDs in Iraq,just cause you say it, write it or hope it, don't make it so. Lance's wins are final, unfortunate for your point of view but factual.

remember I am not Polish's stoker, I think Lance used along with everybody else, but he didn't get caught just like all the others guys that didn't. Just part of the sport, like listening to older athletes complain about current salaries, that was then this is now. Armstrong squeaked out by a hair, he is the one that got away

Why was that again?
Oh thats right he was paying off the UCI - I don't know of any other rider who did the same, do you?

Also - his wins can be taken from him, there is an 8 year SOL that kicked in last year and USADA are sitting getting all the info they need from the Feds.

--edited by mod --

 

[BroDeal]

I doubt they are 'new' members

The one who does not know how to capitalize anything is pretty obvious.

 

[fatandfast]

They are joining the likes of fatandfast and Polish by

I agree I beat the horse more than once. Just think it's silly that right away the collusion thing starts rearing up,about how much the UCI is an equal partner in Lance's past. Probably true but if the US feds are going after them in parallel this thing is going to take way longer than 8 years. The people who own the race would be the ones to change the results not an American judge. If it turns out that Lance's partner in crime was the UCI letting one partner go unpunished is an injustice as large as any other. This is a case with no winner,certainly not cycling fans.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Better do a search before mouthing off the well worn disproven argument that LA would've won the TdF because he had bags of talent. FAIL. He had bags of EPO. LA never was a GT winner before Ferarri's doping program.

No level playing field argument gonna work either.

Why do you think he did not win a grand tour before taking EPO? Because he had no talent, or because other people were taking EPO?

I think we should be honest about where Armstrong stands - he was definitely at least one of the best of his era. That doesn't mean he can't be faulted. But we shouldn't lie about it to make the case against him seem even worse. The case should stand alone.

 

[Polish]

I think Bernie kept his scam going far longer than seven years. He was the best in his field of criminal expertise. The parallel to Armstrong is quite clear.

So the parallel is quite clear to you.
*** edited by mod ***

But anyway, are you predicting Lance will be sentenced to 150 years in prison like Bernie?
If not, why not.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

No other "patient" of Ferrari won the Tour coz Armstrong had an exclusivity arrangement with Ferrari. Ferrari could not prepare another GC contender.

[source: Lance Armstrong's War by Daniel Cole 2005 - written and published with the approval of the subject]

But he's been linked to other top riders since Armstrong retired the first time, Menchov, Pellizotti. They've done pretty well but haven't come close to winning the tour. I think it would be naive to believe Armstrong's success was all down to an exclusive contract. Landis went on to win the tour doping his own way and so have many others. Most of the info on what they use is already out there.

 

[Polish]

What is with all the new, low post Armstrong defenders? It looks like somebody is preparing for the big day.

Code Red, Code Red, Code Red.
Fire Foes Alert!

Fanboys, its all out war.
We go to the mattresses

Can't afford to let the haters win the CN Clinic.
Key real estate. Domino effect.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But he's been linked to other top riders since Armstrong retired the first time, Menchov, Pellizotti. They've done pretty well but haven't come close to winning the tour. I think it would be naive to believe Armstrong's success was all down to an exclusive contract. Landis went on to win the tour doping his own way and so have many others. Most of the info on what they use is already out there.

True - "it wasn't all down to an exclusive contract", I think paying off the people for notification on OOC tests helped too as well as paying off the UCI when he did get caught.

 

[Benotti69]

Why do you think he did not win a grand tour before taking EPO? Because he had no talent, or because other people were taking EPO?

I think we should be honest about where Armstrong stands - he was definitely at least one of the best of his era. That doesn't mean he can't be faulted. But we shouldn't lie about it to make the case against him seem even worse. The case should stand alone.

Oh Dear FAIL AGAIN.

No he was a good 1 day rider maybe had possibilities for short stage races, but never a GT winner NEVER. You just have to look at his results prior to exclusivity with Ferarri.

But this has been done to death and you know that dont you?

So something must be brewing and coming to boil for you to be on here trying to argue points that even Polish has long given up on.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Oh Dear FAIL AGAIN.

No he was a good 1 day rider maybe had possibilities for short stage races, but never a GT winner NEVER. You just have to look at his results prior to exclusivity with Ferarri.

I don't think you understood my point. Why would a rider not taking EPO perform less well than tour riders who were taking EPO?

Are you understanding now?

 

[aphronesis]

The one who does not know how to capitalize anything is pretty obvious.

I figured you'd be the one to bite.

If, over in the politics thread I ever get around to writing posts on the scale of Rhubroma, I'd probably take the time to capitalize. Just to facilitate reading comprehension. (Which is at the same low here that it is in the rest of the English dominated mediascape.) Or, say, if I were writing ad copy for some retro cycling company, I'd probably have to capitalize too (literally, symbolically and figuratively, of course.) But if I'm only trying to ascertain the ethical and moral scale of an ex D.A. and some alienated Colorado cyclist who actually made it with, or was it "banged?" some "asian chicks," (here's a tip: they massively outnumber you bro. given the current state of geopolitics, it might be like shooting fish in a barrel if you're in shape and have a place to call home) then I don't really need to feel the need to put caps on my sentences so that you can feel things are right with the world.

And the only reason I care about those morals and ethics is the fact that, unfortunately, I have to share a (cough [there's some webese for you]) representative democracy with you at least part of the year. And it's a safe bet that the spurned moral outrage invested in Armstrong in this and other threads, by Americans in particular, is underscored by deep civic complacency in all other respects.

I stopped caring about Armstrong a long time ago. In fact, I liked it better when he was racing because it kept him out of the country and off of twitter.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think you understood my point. Why would a rider not taking EPO perform less well than tour riders who were taking EPO?

Are you understanding now?

You think LA wasn't on EPO before 95?
I think the only thing that changed there was he got the best doping Doctor to help him out.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

True - "it wasn't all down to an exclusive contract", I think paying off the people for notification on OOC tests helped too as well as paying off the UCI when he did get caught.

That would help escape detection. But if you take Rasmussen, who got caught by providing false whereabouts, he likely doped for most of his career but he didn't win a string of tours. If he hadn't been caught I doubt he would have won the tour again. Neither did Basso. You can't deny Armstrong had something most of these other riders did not, just as Contador has something most other dopers do not. I think we can recognize this whilst also condemning Armstrong for cheating and making money off tax avoidance. Reality is complex.

 

[BroDeal]

I stopped caring about Armstrong a long time ago. In fact, I liked it better when he was racing because it kept him out of the country and off of twitter.

Yeah, sure you did. That's why you are here defending the scumbag, because you stopped caring.

You have to love a longtime, steadfast Armstrong homer claiming that he cares about morals and ethics. That's comedy gold right there.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

You think LA wasn't on EPO before 95?
I think the only thing that changed there was he got the best doping Doctor to help him out.

Do you think he was on EPO before 95? Highly doubtful. A doping doctor would only tweek a rider already doping. You wouldn't see the change in performance achieved by Armstrong if he was already doping to any sort of reasonable level.

As I say, we don't have to exaggerateto make him look worse. The case against him should stand on the truth and the truth alone. It would be terrible if we looked as dishonest as he is.

 

[Velodude]

True - "it wasn't all down to an exclusive contract", I think paying off the people for notification on OOC tests helped too as well as paying off the UCI when he did get caught.

And other post LA (2005) riders were obligated to ride under team orders and enter into a respectable number of the season's races including all the prominent GT's.

Unlike other multiple GT winners LA was the team autocrat and dictated his wishes. From 1999-2005 LA's "lazer" (sic) like focus was only concentrated on training, assembling a team and entering lead up races specifically for his one race per year.

 

[aphronesis]

Yeah, sure you did. That's why you are here defending the scumbag, because you stopped caring.

You have to love a longtime, steadfast Armstrong homer claiming that he cares about morals and ethics. That's comedy gold right there.

Case in point re. reading comprehension. Shouldn't take you long, given my low post count, to find any post of mine that even vaguely defends Armstrong.