So what's the new scandal?

[Colm.Murphy]

But that's the problem. You have an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of doping in pro cycling.

Show me the ridiculous part of my interpretation. Do it.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

You admit that doping in pro cycling, which has been around for yonks at the high end, is not worthy of going to prison, so you have to mount a case on a technicality over some nonsense about federal sponsor money. It says it all. It's an admission that the case is totally undeserved.



Agreed, having to talk about 'he said, she said' stuff from eight years ago at the tour will not go down well. They will get bombarded with emails and texts from people telling them to pack it in.



In that case, will you condemn those couple of loons who try to make out Armstrong brought down the ToI? You have to admit there are some whacky Irish people on Armstrong. Look out for them.



It makes it all a sham, yes. If no one can be bothered to do it for straight forward moral reasons then that is telling about the case.



No I'm afraid there is a pattern and bad faith and lack of empathy for real people from Lance haters. It's ironic - I have lots of theories as to why this might be.

Pure idiocy. Try again.

 

[stephens]

Lance Armstrong and his cohorts endeavored to defraud, essentially, the American public, and the global public as well. He took, by way of illegal and fraudulent means, money and accolades he did not rightly deserve or achieve.

It would only be fraud if the "public" actually gave a **** about doping and felt doing it was the betrayal that you and a few others here believe it is. Most people simply don't care. Even "proof" of doping will in no way lessen how impressed they are by certain athletes, either in the sport, or in what they've done outside of sports. And this is true for many reasons, not the least of which is that everyone is doing the same thing and always has. And it mirrors the "publics" experience in the real lives. All heroes are flawed, all successful people cheat, and the "public" admires them for getting away with it for as long as they do.

 

[Anonymous]

you are all mental.. there, ive said it.

 

[stephens]

Face it, "never tested positive,"* trumps all for the general public. Even those who think the guy probably did use drugs will admire the fact that he got away with it while others didn't and therefore it's just another thing he did better than the competition.

(*no, back testing ancient samples doesn't count)

This is why, as I've said before, the only charge that will really hurt Lance's reputation with "the public" is the one of bribing the UCI to cover up an actual positive test. The public admires being able to beat the system, but not being able to pay one's way out of trouble once caught.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't do yourself down too much - you don't have anything like the problems of TFF and others here. You actually are a fan of the sport and like a lot of riders, and you do make points about issues rather than just tell other people they're crap. I was just pointing out there you're one of these twitter people that are always taking a pop at Armstrong so could not really be counted as the classic cycling fan when you claimed you are delighted about all this.

I take a pop at plenty of people. One of the joys or maybe mistakes of what I tweet is that I am always completely honest. Lance is such an easy target though cos he talks such crap.I think when armstrong goes a huge burden will be lifted off the shoulders of cycling. Cycling will lose a lot of fans, i dont follow lance but i do do a search on @lance once or twice a day to see what everybody else is saying about him. Some of the levels of delusion is disturbing. Ive stopped even replying to his fans now.

I also beleive that if someone like lance chooses to put himself on a public forum where he is allowed to say what he thinks, he has to accept that people will say things in return, ask him questions etc. Lance uses twitter as a publicity tool and blocks anyone who says anything against him. Unlike the idiot in luxembourg who stood ten people back and boo'd lance I would happily come forward with exactly the same comments to his face.

And actually, i have barely ever said anything to Lance, i prefer baiting bruyneel. He is so easily wound up. He got his knickers in a right twist one night over a frigging debate about race radio when he said it was a good thing, a few people told him it wasnt and he got upset and started phoning lance.

Anyway, Im bored humouring you now. Im going to go watch an episode of dark angel and gawp at Jessica Alba for 43 minutes

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The bit where you claim LA set out to defraud the public for choosing to be competitive at the GC level like everyone else on that level, and the way you only use this terminology for him and not other dopers.

It's a complete bunch of crap. You don't do yourself any favours when you peddle these myths.

Did he not defraud the public? Would he have won without doping, and a doped up team to support him?

The other riders, or the norms at the time, are not the issue, nor does it make it any less true.

That Lance is the center-piece is by his own choosing, not mine. Yes, they all dope. Yet, the evidence in their cases stays buried. I wonder why?

The tallest nail get the hammer, I suppose. Victim of their own success.

However you prefer to slice it, it does not make it any less a fraud or any less of a crime, as it relates to how they scammed a sponsor or the public out of millions of dollars.

It is what it is, and in Lance's case it is criminal. Cold hard fact. No emotions, no clapping or cheering. It would have been better had it never happened.

Better start your therapy to be able to handle this reality.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Face it, "never tested positive,"* trumps all for the general public. Even those who think the guy probably did use drugs will admire the fact that he got away with it while others didn't and therefore it's just another thing he did better than the competition.

(*no, back testing ancient samples doesn't count)

This is why, as I've said before, the only charge that will really hurt Lance's reputation with "the public" is the one of bribing the UCI to cover up an actual positive test. The public admires being able to beat the system, but not being able to pay one's way out of trouble once caught.

You don't think folks will resent him scamming millions from the US Govt? In fact, the general public will probably care more about the scam than his winning bike races. Beating the system, in this case, means ill-got business gains, and the public does not generally appreciate that sort of cheating.

 

[stephens]

You don't think folks will resent him scamming millions from the US Govt?

What scam? I suppose by the "govt" you mean "the postal service", sponsored a bike team to get advertising benefit and beat out its competition. The sponsored rider won and presumably the postal service benefited from its association with him. He did so by following the "rules" of his sport, as defined by historical precedent (if not necessarily its rulebook but then again, he was never busted by that sport either). End of story for most folks. They got exactly what they expected, and then got the cancer stuff out of him as well.

 

[Polish]

Did he not defraud the public? Would he have won without doping, and a doped up team to support him?

.

Yes, he would have still won.

According to LeMond, EPO will give you an 8-9 minute advantage

"If I was doing EPO, I should have won by eight or nine minutes."
http://www.examiner.com/x-1155-Cycl...eg-LeMond-Lance-Armstrong-told-me-he-took-EPO

There were no clean riders within 8-9 minutes of Lance in any of his 7 wins.
Heck, even the dopers lost by 6-7 minutes mostly.

Yes, Lance still would have won.

BTW, Big Mig beat LeMond by 13 minutes in 91.
Clean Big Mig would have still beat LeMond
LeMond could not even finish the Tour after that....
So much for the EPO era ending Greg's chances. MYTH.

 

[Race Radio]

Random apologist rant

Most people would agree that tax evasion is a crime worth pursuing.

 

[Barrus]

It's not his fault that he got the timing wrong. The article was originally planned for tomorrow, but internal debate over technical details, such as in which section to place the article, will see it pushed back into next week until a neutral, senior editor w/in the publication in question can make the final decision on these contentious issues.

The man's got a source, that's for sure. Legend!

Well, if Joe Papp verifies that the source of Colm is good, that means it is most likely not a fabrication of Colm. imagination .
But anyway, if what you both say is real (still hold my reservations, for I do not have your sources and well it is always better to remain reserved) have all these people also been interviewed in the USADA investigation. IS that where WSJ source comes from, if so and this article imlicates LA and JB too a large extend, both of them are completely and royaly screwed

 

[BroDeal]

Well, if Joe Papp verifies that the source of Colm is good, that means it is most likely not a fabrication of Colm. imagination .
But anyway, if what you both say is real (still hold my reservations, for I do not have your sources and well it is always better to remain reserved) have all these people also been interviewed in the USADA investigation. IS that where WSJ source comes from, if so and this article imlicates LA and JB too a large extend, both of them are completely and royaly screwed

I for one refuse to believe anything until it becomes a Hog Exclusive.

 

[MacRoadie]

I was probably a little tough because I tend to address a generic anti Lance person since so much of it applies to others.

Yeah, you're quite the killer there, Tiger....

 

[Barrus]

I for one refuse to believe anything until it becomes a Hog Exclusive.

Well, that might take a while now

 

[Oldman]

Yes, he would have still won.

According to LeMond, EPO will give you an 8-9 minute advantage

"If I was doing EPO, I should have won by eight or nine minutes."
http://www.examiner.com/x-1155-Cycl...eg-LeMond-Lance-Armstrong-told-me-he-took-EPO

There were no clean riders within 8-9 minutes of Lance in any of his 7 wins.
Heck, even the dopers lost by 6-7 minutes mostly.

Yes, Lance still would have won.

BTW, Big Mig beat LeMond by 13 minutes in 91.
Clean Big Mig would have still beat LeMond
LeMond could not even finish the Tour after that....
So much for the EPO era ending Greg's chances. MYTH.

Sorry, booster boy. I rode against this "phenom" early on. There are many, many riders who could beat him clean then and now. You need to do some research to his real pedigree. Lance has very good doctors.

 

[stephens]

Most people would agree that tax evasion is a crime worth pursuing.

In the USA? You're joking, right? People here don't think they should pay any taxes at all and show no inclination to demonize those that get away without paying. (BTW, what "tax evasion" charges are part of this investigation? Is Landis an accountant now, too?)

 

[buckwheat]

Sorry, booster boy. I rode against this "phenom" early on. There are many, many riders who could beat him clean then and now. You need to do some research to his real pedigree. Lance has very good doctors.

Your effort is futile here. Too many .150 hitters impressed by a .250 hitter.

 

[python]

i know we have some serious photo shop talent on this board.

who will be the first to show texas in the handcuffs ?

or would that be off-limits ?

c'mon youg talent, dare

 

[Bala Verde]

Drugs are not Armstrong's only issue, Tax evasion, Wire fraud, FCP Act, perjury, and the ever popular obstruction of justice.

Money laundering?

 

[Polish]

It's not his fault that he got the timing wrong. The article was originally planned for tomorrow, but internal debate over technical details, such as in which section to place the article, will see it pushed back into next week until a neutral, senior editor w/in the publication in question can make the final decision on these contentious issues.

The man's got a source, that's for sure. Legend!

If the WSJ is not protecting the details on this story, it just goes to show how UNIMPORTANT they consider it.

Would they let info out early if Exxon's CEO was going to be involved in a scandal?
Of course not. Short sale some Exxon stock?

Maybe Lance was right when he called the WSJ "unprofessional".



BTW, my sources, a little birdie in the Białowieża Forest, told ME that
Murdoch/WSJ wants to divert attention AWAY from Big Oil.

British Big Oil

Won't work. The Lance Scandal will blow over
faster than a tropical storm in the gulf of mexico.

 

[goober]

Sorry, booster boy. I rode against this "phenom" early on. There are many, many riders who could beat him clean then and now. You need to do some research to his real pedigree. Lance has very good doctors.

What year? What big races? I did too, as well as Hincapie, a very very young Hamilton, etc. I agree many riders (US domestic riders) could beat him and now, every year of his career. He peaked each year at the TDF, always had a great TTT helping his time, was always a good ITT, and had a very tactical team helping him along the route. He has lungs capicity few of us even come close to, recovery is top, etc. He is definately idolized by his 7 TDF wins (which he should be) but overall soo many racers having a good day could beat him and during a good day he could beat them (same holds true for many at that level). Recovering from cancer and winning 7 TDF is his "phenom". Honestly from my view, Lance had no better doctors than any other rider at his level. Being domestic back then I did not see EPO, etc. or I was just such a local slowpoke I did not know. The funniest thing, the ONLY time I every saw a rider taking illegal drugs (recreational be it) was one of the people doing much of the accusations at a party . Will be very interesting to see what comes out of all of this...

 

[oldschoolnik]

i know we have some serious photo shop talent on this board.

who will be the first to show texas in the handcuffs ?

or would that be off-limits ?

c'mon youg talent, dare

I am no cat 1 photoshop pro but I'll take your challenge... after world cup matches...

 

[python]

goober, you talking about a rider's lung capacity being a superior factor in performance tells me to put it mildly you are underinformed about the physiology of performance at pro level. i'll leave it at that. no animosity intended, just sayin'

 

[MacRoadie]

If the WSJ is not protecting the details on this story, it just goes to show how UNIMPORTANT they consider it.

Hmmmm, let's see...

Aside from the (patently) obvious fact that the WSJ doesn't "make up" the "details", but gets them from someone else who already possesses the information, or that they're not meeting people at 2 am in a Washington DC parking garage, or that they'd be hard-pressed to force someone to keep quiet over information the paper has no legal right to control, your point makes perfect sense.

On the other hand...

This is a cycling forum, more than a few members have long histories with US cycling, one is actually involved in the general topic of this discussion (see your quote), and the WSJ story is about cycling.

Couldn't be that someone was actually interviewed, or has a first-person relationship, with someone who was interviewed for the article.

Naw, never happen...