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

[Dr. Maserati]

And it is all only relevant to the Armstrong Is The Worst Human Being in the World argument.

No he isn't - no one has said that.
He is a doper, a liar, and a fraud. That is all.

 

[Benotti69]

Another argument that Armstrong is just the absolute worst human being and we all should hate him!

He is not a nice guy, not the worst in the world and i never used the word hate.

To expose a lie does not require hate. It requires the truth and lots of people it seems cannot accept the truth so they brandish those who can see haters.

Old trick. For fans of Armstrong there are believers and those who dont are heretics and should be burnt.

 

[aphronesis]

Nowhere in that post you quoted did Benotti say LA is the "absolute worst human being and we all should hate him".
All he did was describe Armstrong as "a bully, a cheat and a fraud" - that is a fair and accurate statement.

Bully, sure. Cheat? In terms of the sport, yes. Mark should have made three if not four categories though to parcel out the discontent and contention around Armstrong.

But fraud comes back to part of the disagreements we had earlier. Fraud to whom? You've been invested in and close to cycling since at least the 80s from what I recall and can glean. So at what point did you not get a buzz on the ground that things were off? Did he defraud you? The race organizers? The fans on the race course? Who?

 

[BroDeal]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It has gone from Armstrong would never dope to acknowledging that he is a cheater and has a character equivalent to Ty Cobb. Have you ever considered pulling back for a moment to ask yourself why you defend this guy?

Next up, MarkW uses Pete Rose to excuse Armstrong's lying.

 

[Velodude]

And it is all only relevant to the Armstrong Is The Worst Human Being in the World argument.

Which is an argument you strongly subscribe to but then you subscribe to the fan group generated fallback defense that he operated on a level playing field. Which also implies all teams bribed the UCI.

Very odd. Mixed emotions? Trying to be seen as a fence sitter?

Previously posted by MarkvW
thought he was great until the Simeoni incident. Simeoni convinced me beyond all doubt that he is a disgusting human being and a doper. Floyd + Tyler + George just reaffirmed what I already knew. Ferrari is (and Conconi was) putrid scum.

Previously posted by MarkvW
Yeah. Armstrong cheated all the clean teams in the pro peloton. Unfortunately, there were no clean teams in the pro peloton.

 

[Louison]

Two things:

1) Pot meet kettle. Change one word and it fits perfectly for those on the opposite extreme.

For fans of Armstrong there are believers and those who dont are heretics and should be burnt.

2) Is claiming people are up to "old tricks" the new anti-Armstrong go to defense?

 

[BroDeal]

You really have to love how people defending a lie describe those telling the truth as extremists. We are entering an unexplored world of cognitive dissonance here.

 

[Benotti69]

Two things:

1) Pot meet kettle. Change one word and it fits perfectly for those on the opposite extreme.


2) Is claiming people are up to "old tricks" the new anti-Armstrong go to defense?

You are the one claiming that posters in here hate Armstrong yet it is consistently posters like yourself who have defended Armstrong's actions and branded those who disagree as haters.

When you were asked to show where people have used the word hate you change tact and refuse to do so, just like those who believe in a false idol and when confronted with the truth throw the hate spiel out.

 

[MarkvW]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It has gone from Armstrong would never dope to acknowledging that he is a cheater and has a character equivalent to Ty Cobb. Have you ever considered pulling back for a moment to ask yourself why you defend this guy?

Next up, MarkW uses Pete Rose to excuse Armstrong's lying.

Did Pete Rose lie? OHMIGOSH! My entire faith in baseball is absolutely shattered!

 

[aphronesis]

You really have to love how people defending a lie describe those telling the truth as extremists. We are entering an unexplored world of cognitive dissonance here.

I'm pretty sure we've been in that world for a while. And this debate is only a small side effect of that condition.

 

[MarkvW]

Which is an argument you strongly subscribe to but then you subscribe to the fan group generated fallback defense that he operated on a level playing field. Which also implies all teams bribed the UCI.

Very odd. Mixed emotions? Trying to be seen as a fence sitter?

Could you please rewrite that in English?

 

[Velodude]

Bully, sure. Cheat? In terms of the sport, yes. Mark should have made three if not four categories though to parcel out the discontent and contention around Armstrong.

But fraud comes back to part of the disagreements we had earlier. Fraud to whom? You've been invested in and close to cycling since at least the 80s from what I recall and can glean. So at what point did you not get a buzz on the ground that things were off? Did he defraud you? The race organizers? The fans on the race course? Who?

It is not on the US statute books but in countries like Italy and France it is known as sporting fraud.

However, in the absence of sporting fraud the whole investigation against Armstrong and cohorts is centralized around the starting point that they defrauded the US Government in breaching a specific non doping term of the sponsorship agreement with deemed government instrumentality, USPS.

That is a conspiracy to defraud.

And the owners of the US Postal Cycling Team, Tailwind Sports and CS&E, conspired to breach numerous Federal laws to facilitate organized team doping in the period 1999 to 2007.

 

[BroDeal]

Did Pete Rose lie? OHMIGOSH! My entire faith in baseball is absolutely shattered!

That Google law degree of yours seems to have had an emphasis on straw men argumentation

 

[Louison]

You are the one claiming that posters in here hate Armstrong yet it is consistently posters like yourself who have defended Armstrong's actions and branded those who disagree as haters.

When you were asked to show where people have used the word hate you change tact and refuse to do so, just like those who believe in a false idol and when confronted with the truth throw the hate spiel out.

1) Wow, you go on the attack simply because I pointed out that your comment could be used on both extremes in this debate and asked about the use of "old trick. Interesting.

2) A bit hypocritical to use the word "you" and make this about me after your earlier post.

3) I haven't defended his actions I have shown that the absolutes some speak in are not true and that the things being said are not just Armstrong traits. Are you lying or simply can't see the truth because of your obsession.

4) Can you show me where I was asked to provide proof of people saying that they hate Armstrong as I don't recall that demand. No matter the proof is there for anyone with an open mind to see.

Rage on my brother!

 

[aphronesis]

It is not on the US statute books but in countries like Italy and France it is known as sporting fraud.

However, in the absence of sporting fraud the whole investigation against Armstrong and cohorts is centralized around the starting point that they defrauded the US Government in breaching a specific non doping term of the sponsorship agreement with deemed government instrumentality, USPS.

That is a conspiracy to defraud.

And the owners of the US Postal Cycling Team, Tailwind Sports and CS&E, conspired to breach numerous Federal laws to facilitate organized team doping in the period 1999 to 2007.

Oh, the legal definition. Right. I'm pretty sure that's not entirely how Doc meant it. Which was why I asked him for his interpretation of that moment.
And because, in sum, he has a longstanding and nuanced investment in the sport.

I'm thrilled that you've picked up the flag in terms of staving off the deliquescence of the thread and all the possible offenses, but you know that that was not my question, nor that I was unaware of those *possible* charges, nor, were you unaware that just because that's one definition that it's the only one--least of all, one that I care about.

If the Feds made a mission to prosecute fraud, we could reorganize civil society from the ground up.


Since it is a public thread, others, such as you, are free to post and weigh in, but I wonder if you could give something other than a legal citation on the matter?

Or are you just back to the professional handicap of arguing from the stance that once a word enters the legal vernacular that that definition precedes and supersedes all others.

PM a PO box, I'll send you a non-legal dictionary.

 

[Louison]

You really have to love how people defending a lie describe those telling the truth as extremists. We are entering an unexplored world of cognitive dissonance here.

I realize this is just more of your trolling, but note that I said "both extremes.". It's very disingenuous of you to ignore an important part of what has been posted in order to have it fit your agenda.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-junior-race-series-underway

 

[Velodude]

Oh, the legal definition. Right. I'm pretty sure that's not entirely how Doc meant it. Which was why I asked him for his interpretation of that moment.
And because, in sum, he has a longstanding and nuanced investment in the sport.

I'm thrilled that you've picked up the flag in terms of staving off the deliquescence of the thread and all the possible offenses, but you know that that was not my question, nor that I was unaware of those *possible* charges, nor, were you unaware that just because that's one definition that it's the only one--least of all, one that I care about.

If the Feds made a mission to prosecute fraud, we could reorganize civil society from the ground up.


Since it is a public thread, others, such as you, are free to post and weigh in, but I wonder if you could give something other than a legal citation on the matter?

Or are you just back to the professional handicap of arguing from the stance that once a word enters the legal vernacular that that definition precedes and supersedes all others.

PM a PO box, I'll send you a non-legal dictionary.

What is your point?

There should be two government criminal actions against Armstrong - a legal action and a non legal action?

 

[Berzin]

Louison-you can love Armstrong until he's dead in the grave and beyond. Nobody cares about your affiliations, nor do we care about how you waste your time defending him.

When the truth comes out, you'll still be ranting the same nonsense as right now, except looking more foolish.

What you need to come to terms with is the process started months ago, it is a serious case with serious ramifications, and absolutely no type of argument you engage in is going to change a thing.

The ongoing legal process is beyond your scope to control or manipulate. You only have one outlet for your impotent rage, and it's here in the Clinic, where no one cares.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bully, sure. Cheat? In terms of the sport, yes. Mark should have made three if not four categories though to parcel out the discontent and contention around Armstrong.

Bully, cheat, fraud - I don't see what is wrong with any of those adjectives.

But fraud comes back to part of the disagreements we had earlier. Fraud to whom? You've been invested in and close to cycling since at least the 80s from what I recall and can glean. So at what point did you not get a buzz on the ground that things were off? Did he defraud you? The race organizers? The fans on the race course? Who?

It is a fraud - to all of the above. LA was caught doping in 2001 - he should have been sitting out a suspension, maybe USPS would have pulled out.
But he continued on - lying to all to continue that deceit.
Everyone who paid him or bought in to him was a victim of that fraud.

 

[BroDeal]

I realize this is just more of your trolling, but note that I said "both extremes.". It's very disingenuous of you to ignore an important part of what has been posted in order to have it fit your agenda.

It's very disingenous of you to define the side telling the truth as extreme. If it makes you feel better about defending a lie then go for it. All those "you guys" will laugh at you, but there may be someone somewhere, perhaps with a traumatic brain injury, who won't be able to figure out what you are attempting to do.

 

[aphronesis]

What is your point?

There should be two government criminal actions against Armstrong - a legal action and a non legal action?

My point. I asked a long time poster to define fraud relative to the sport and activity of cycling.

You gave the legal definition as it applies to a possible case.

I. Wasn't. Making. A. Point. I asked a question. Of an amateur expert.

My question had to do with definitions. Prior to actions. It's the way that, laws (with which you are familiar) get formed.

As opposed to unthinkingly enforced.

Yours is a bureaucratic category. Two different things. And, to repeat, you know full well that I wasn't ignorant of your definition.

So what is your point? I'm sure Novitsky would take some weekend interns if that's the substance you're looking to contribute to this issue.

 

[doolols]

Originally Posted by doolols
No, he cheated all of his fans who believed him when he said he was clean.

I agree with your point that Armstrong cheated his fans. I strongly agree.

But your post is somewhat ambiguous. Do you think that he also cheated all the teams that contended against him?

Huh? Ambiguity? Where's the ambiguity? I make one statement in answer to a direct question, and it's ambiguous?

Anyway, to try to answer your question ... it's a toughie. When cheating is prevalent in the pelaton (and who knows how much), can someone who cheats be a cheater to others who cheat? Who cheats more?

 

[aphronesis]

Bully, cheat, fraud - I don't see what is wrong with any of those adjectives.


It is a fraud - to all of the above. LA was caught doping in 2001 - he should have been sitting out a suspension, maybe USPS would have pulled out.
But he continued on - lying to all to continue that deceit.
Everyone who paid him or bought in to him was a victim of that fraud.

Fine, thanks. Excellent. But then doesn't it already extend beyond him? And I don't mean this in the sense of "oh, everyone was doing it, blah, blah,"

But the sport as a whole let it go. And, also, lying "to all." You're all about precision in posts. Lies are told to those who believe them. So who exactly did he lie to? USPS? Yes. Anyone else?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I realize this is just more of your trolling, but note that I said "both extremes.". It's very disingenuous of you to ignore an important part of what has been posted in order to have it fit your agenda.

Yes you go on about "both extremes" - but what does that mean?

Are you arguing that Armstrong did not bully, dope and deceive people throughout his career? That is all that many of us say about him - thats not "hating" on anyone or being "irrational" - it is a simple fact.