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

[Polish]

Lance made many donations. No secret.
So many donations he can not keep them straight. No secret.
No secret and no big deal.
There is plenty of evidence of many donations.
Plenty of public statements that Lance made plenty of donations.
Donations Donations and more Donations.
Lance's accountants can't keep them all straight.
Donation here, donation there. No secret.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is so much confusion and mis-information out there regarding Lance's donations, I thought a separate thread is required to clear some things up.

Here is an article from CN written back in 2005.
Written almost OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven years ago:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-puts-extra-money-into-anti-doping

Originally Posted by CN2005
A more infrequently reported fact, although one that is by no means a secret, is that he has helped the UCI over the years in its fight against doping, by donating money to the cause. "I am a huge advocate of WADA, USADA, drug controls, random controls, out of competition controls," said Armstrong in an interview with Cyclingnews last year. "I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls]."

.

Hey Polish, can you explain why the actual interview is in fact from 2004 - and even then Lance says "over the years", which means that there must already have been more than one donation.

Perhaps Sylvia Schenk was indeed correct when she said in 2005.

"But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong... There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lance made many donations. No secret.
So many donations he can not keep them straight. No secret.
No secret and no big deal.
There is plenty of evidence of many donations.
Plenty of public statements that Lance made plenty of donations.
Donations Donations and more Donations.
Lance's accountants can't keep them all straight.
Donation here, donation there. No secret.

Well you did say this....

There is so much confusion and mis-information out there regarding Lance's donations, I thought a separate thread is required to clear some things up.

...at the start of your thread, so I assumed you are going to clear up the confusion and set everyone straight on what you call "mis-information".
So, since you say Lance made "many donations" and they are "no secret" - so how many donations exactly? How much was each donation? Thanks.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

That would surprise me.

Maybe Dylan Casey or maybe related to someone who was a government relations person at LAF?

 

[Velodude]

There is so much confusion and mis-information out there regarding Lance's donations, I thought a separate thread is required to clear some things up.

Here is an article from CN written back in 2005.
Written almost OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven years ago:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-puts-extra-money-into-anti-doping

Yes, Lance donated money over the years. No secret back then.

Yes, Lance bought a Sysmex machine. No secret.

There is plenty of evidence that Lance made many donations. No secret.

Now if the UCI did not use the donations for anti-doping, that would be a bit disappointing sure. But not Lance's fault.

The interview was on July 1, 2005 with the then UCI President, Hein Verbruggen. The baton change with McQuaid happened in September 2005.

Verbruggen claims Armstrong's donations were large and in cash. But UCI records allegedly disclose only a check of $25,000. Armstrong caught on the backfoot in SCA hearing. What does SCA know?

Verbruggen, 64 at the time, is in his twilight years when memory can be a problem. Can't remember if he put the LA cash in his pocket or banked into the UCI.

Anyhow, Verbruggen is of the mindset that he and his successor can deny non judicial access to the UCI's records.

Then along came Floyd Landis in 2010.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Hey Polish, can you explain why the actual interview is in fact from 2004 - and even then Lance says "over the years", which means that there must already have been more than one donation.

Perhaps Sylvia Schenk was indeed correct when she said in 2005.

You know the game "Stille Post" ?
This is how it happened.
Similiar to the "Lance flushing Floyd's blood(bag) down the toilet"-issue.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I'll summarize this topic.

 

[Cloxxki]

I was impressed at the time as well, saw it all live. Now I know Dutch NOS TV is just a UCI propaganda outlet. It's not for nothing that Mart Smeets is such an outstanding sport proze writer, perhaps.
After the Landis sh|t hit the fan, they were first to interview His Yellowness. And guess what they failed to ask him about, which he has since been facing federal questions on?

 

[Polish]

Hey Polish, can you explain why the actual interview is in fact from 2004 - and even then Lance says "over the years", which means that there must already have been more than one donation.

Perhaps Sylvia Schenk was indeed correct when she said in 2005.

Ms Schenk was indeed correct when she says Lance made many donations.
Lance said he made many donations. Never a secret.
So many donations he can not keep them straight. BFD.

Ms Schenk was also correct when she said it would be impossible to cover up a positive test btw.

You know, Lance made so many donations it is easy to see how rumours start.
"Lance bribed the UCI per a friend of a friend in the know."
"Lance flushed evidence of the bribe down the toilet."
Some people will believe anything they read.
Add to that poor reading comprehension and you catch my drift.
Mis-information and confusion galore.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Excuse me but this thread doesn't seem to have a real purpose.

 

[Cloxxki]

Excuse me but this thread doesn't seem to have a real purpose.

The same purpose for Polish, as LiveStrong itself to Lance.

Self.

Both are real.

 

[doolols]

I think the whole thing stinks. An active athlete makes 'donations' to the organisation in charge of the sport. No one knows how much - LA saying $25,000, maybe, something like that, and everything in between up to $500,000. Made by means unknown, maybe cash, to people who don't keep records.

To me, it's obvious that everyone involved thinks that they're above the law, and that they don't need to conform to proper accounting methods. "Here you are, mate, here's a lump of cash. It must be used for anti-doping in some way or other, because that's my big message, but just use it as you see fit. That okay? Wife and kids okay? Fancy a ride in my big jet?"

The situation is completely farcical.

 

[Berzin]

You guys keep feeding this idiot troll, and for what?

Polish, you truly are one pathetic, creepy freak of a human being.

Yes, I know I'll get punished for this, but enough is enough and someone had to say it already.

 

[Neworld]

Lance made many donations...

Lance's accountants can't keep them all straight.
Donation here, donation there. No secret.

So many donations...can't keep them all straight"

Too bad federal forensic accountants CAN and will! Unless you can show us in you typically blurry farcical manner.

NW

 

[doolols]

Mis-information and confusion galore.

You said it.

What reasons could there be for LA to be slightly furry about amounts and dates?

1. He's not very bright.
2. He was bright, but various pharmaceutical elements have affected his mental abilities.
3. He knows exactly what, where, when and how much, but doesn't want to say (for whatever reason).
4. He actually doesn't know, because he wasn't in control of the funds.

Any more?

 

[Cimacoppi48]

You said it.

What reasons could there be for LA to be slightly furry about amounts and dates?

1. He's not very bright.
2. He was bright, but various pharmaceutical elements have affected his mental abilities.
3. He knows exactly what, where, when and how much, but doesn't want to say (for whatever reason).
4. He actually doesn't know, because he wasn't in control of the funds.

Any more?

I'll pick door #3, Monty.

 

[Polish]

You said it.

What reasons could there be for LA to be slightly furry about amounts and dates?

1. He's not very bright.
2. He was bright, but various pharmaceutical elements have affected his mental abilities.
3. He knows exactly what, where, when and how much, but doesn't want to say (for whatever reason).
4. He actually doesn't know, because he wasn't in control of the funds.

Any more?

I would guess #4 is closest to the truth.

I mean c'mon - how many of you can remember all the donations you have made over the last 10 or more years. Remember them off the top of your head. For me it is Livestrong, Goodwill, some schools and others I can not recall at this moment. How much specifically? Pretty meager I guess. Over 4 figures? Probably. Over 5 figures? Not sure, maybe. So who specifically did I donate to? I told you already stupid - I'm not sure

And Lance probably DID have accountants/finance people doing it.
Not me, did them myself and I still can't remember them all

 

[Velodude]

I would guess #4 is closest to the truth.

I mean c'mon - how many of you can remember all the donations you have made over the last 10 or more years. Remember them off the top of your head. For me it is Livestrong, Goodwill, some schools and others I can not recall at this moment. How much specifically? Pretty meager I guess. Over 4 figures? Probably. Over 5 figures? Not sure, maybe. So who specifically did I donate to? I told you already stupid - I'm not sure

And Lance probably DID have accountants/finance people doing it.
Not me, did them myself and I still can't remember them all

Polish, when witnesses are called to testify during civil or criminal legal proceedings to avoid telling the truth or to perjure themselves they use the old evasive chestnut "I have no recollection of that event".

Wonderboy's list of public untruths are so vast that a thread was set up titled "Armstrong Lies". It is 55 pages long with about 545 posts.

Makes for an interesting re-cap

 

[MarkvW]

Imagine a future scenario where Armstrong is disgraced and maybe even sanctioned and prosecuted. The haters are enraptured and will laud the event as a great event in the war against doping. The UCI will cite the enforcement against Armstrong as a sign that the system works and will conduct business as usual. In a few years, another American phenomenon will emerge, driving North American bicycle sales and bicycle event promotion . . .

 

[MarkvW]

Polish, when witnesses are called to testify during civil or criminal legal proceedings to avoid telling the truth or to perjure themselves they use the old evasive chestnut "I have no recollection of that event".

Wonderboy's list of public untruths are so vast that a thread was set up titled "Armstrong Lies". It is 55 pages long with about 545 posts.

Makes for an interesting re-cap

It's still perjury if the witness does have a recollection and falsely states that he has no recollection of the event.

 

[TexPat]

You said it.

What reasons could there be for LA to be slightly furry about amounts and dates?

1. He's not very bright.
2. He was bright, but various pharmaceutical elements have affected his mental abilities.
3. He knows exactly what, where, when and how much, but doesn't want to say (for whatever reason).
4. He actually doesn't know, because he wasn't in control of the funds.

Any more?

Nos 1, 3 and 4 (only because the control was partial). Just a guess for the sake of playing the game. Not that I would know or anything like that.

 

[Benotti69]

Imagine a future scenario where Armstrong is disgraced and maybe even sanctioned and prosecuted. The haters are enraptured and will laud the event as a great event in the war against doping. The UCI will cite the enforcement against Armstrong as a sign that the system works and will conduct business as usual. In a few years, another American phenomenon will emerge, driving North American bicycle sales and bicycle event promotion . . .

Well that is a sad apology, so let Armstrong away with because it will only happen again. Should we apply that across society to all wrongdoers or just the ones you are a fan of?

If Armstrong goes down he might be the pebble that starts the avalanche and takes the likes of McQuaid, Bruyneel, Riis and others with him.

If society does not prosecute cheats/liars/fraud/corruption on every level according to the law we might as well go home and forget about it.

 

[Anonymous]

Imagine a future scenario where Armstrong is disgraced and maybe even sanctioned and prosecuted. The haters are enraptured and will laud the event as a great event in the war against doping. The UCI will cite the enforcement against Armstrong as a sign that the system works and will conduct business as usual. In a few years, another American phenomenon will emerge, driving North American bicycle sales and bicycle event promotion . . .

No, it will be two great events. The first will be that Armstrong will have to suffer the consequences of his actions (I hope the same for everyone else who doped), and the second will be that people like you will go away because you no longer have anything to discuss.

 

[Anonymous]

It's still perjury if the witness does have a recollection and falsely states that he has no recollection of the event.

You are correct on a technical level, but try to prove that in court.

 

[skippy]

HERE is the link to a blog some of you haters need to read :

http://theamazing39stonecyclist.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/meet-my-30-month-old

whilst the only good news you mushrooms get in life is adverse to Lance or LiveSTRONG he has been the beneficiary of a new way of life !

Hope this will inspire a change in attitudes ! IF NOT take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if you can live without your computer whilst you look for a life without HATING being the centre of your existance !