• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

So what's the new scandal?

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
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".

The most likely reason for a delay is the scandalous nature of the story, which makes all major publications cautious about getting the details right. All reporters have to go through a legal review on any contentious news.

I have watched this first hand - the reporter is pushing for the story to be published, and the lawyer reviewing the text is asking for 2nd and 3rd sources to confirm details. Words get changed or softened, but eventually the story gets published. If WSJ is comfortable that they have an exclusive scoop, they may play the timing to match the build-up for TdF.
 
Tubeless said:
The most likely reason for a delay is the scandalous nature of the story, which makes all major publications cautious about getting the details right. All reporters have to go through a legal review on any contentious news.

I have watched this first hand - the reporter is pushing for the story to be published, and the lawyer reviewing the text is asking for 2nd and 3rd sources to confirm details. Words get changed or softened, but eventually the story gets published. If WSJ is comfortable that they have an exclusive scoop, they may play the timing to match the build-up for TdF.

Really, the delay simply stems from a debate over technical details of the piece. Fact-checking/legal has already been taken care of...according to my understanding of the situation.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
What the European, and greater, cycling communities seem to want is closure. They had it with LA's retirement in 2005. When he came back, that was when their was a collective groan. LA had won it all, 7 times over, bullied his detractors, took all the cake and despite building up the global awareness for professional cycling, he was there to suck the air out of the proverbial room.

I neither like, nor dis-like Armstrong. I dislike, in general, those who gain by deceit. Any claim that "those were the times" is invalid. Rationalize it as you need, in order to keep Lance on your pedestal, but the blemish on his legacy has past the tipping point.

What with this EUROPEAN thing??
I thought only the fanboys claimed that "the Europeans" are anti-Lance lol.
You believe that too? Will Lance need extra bodyguards at the tour?
boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boooooooo

"Blemish on his Legacy"
Oh spare me.
Haven't you ever popped a zit before?
 
Jul 11, 2009
283
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
"Blemish on his Legacy"
Oh spare me.
Haven't you ever popped a zit before?

yeah, blemish. Not too hard to understand.
Lance's 7 tour wins will be viewed the same way as McGwire & Sosa's home run records. One big fat asterisk, so big you can't see around it.

Look at the public humiliation McGwire had to suck up when he started a new job as a batting coach. The only press Sosa gets now is when he applies too much face whitening cream. Former heroes, now regarded with derision and scorn. So goes Lance.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Visit site
autologous said:
yeah, blemish. Not too hard to understand.
Lance's 7 tour wins will be viewed the same way as McGwire & Sosa's home run records. One big fat asterisk, so big you can't see around it.

Look at the public humiliation McGwire had to suck up when he started a new job as a batting coach. The only press Sosa gets now is when he applies too much face whitening cream. Former heroes, now regarded with derision and scorn. So goes Lance.

You left out the 2 guys taking the biggest hit. Unemployed baseball player Barry Bonds. Go to Cooperstown and see the home run ball which passed Aaron. Anyone calling him up to work? Nope. He sat by the phone for a year waiting for a team to call the all-time home run hitter. Zip.

Clemens used to endorse everything. Haven't seen his face in an ad in a year or so. Plus he is worried about a perjury case. Hubris.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
stephens said:
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?)

You would have to be rather naive to think that what Landis put in his email is Armstrong's only issue and the only evidence.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think it worthwhile to also note that Armstrong is not the only target of the investigation if you are basing your assessment on what Floyd put in the emails. He names several names, and the things that spread from that could be a mile wide and an inch deep in many places.

My hope is that Armstrong is exposed to the general populace to be the fraud that he is. He deserves it because of the things he has done to others. Unfortunately, people do not always get what they deserve, especially when they can afford any retainer and billable hour in existence. Mr Armstrong has made a lot of money prostituting cancer, and that money goes a long way. Our judicial system is not known for meading out justice to the wealthy. Some get busted, but just enough to make it appear to not be completely biased. Fact is, there are attorneys good enough to get a guy who pezzed his wife and left his footprints and DNA evidence at the scene off completely. Wealth makes all the difference in the world, and people should not believe that rule will be suspended now.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You would have to be rather naive to think that what Landis put in his email is Armstrong's only issue and the only evidence.

Can you provide a link or other background on the tax evasion issue? From a legal standpoint I am interested in what some may term "collateral damage" issues.

Thank you.

Joe.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
My hope is that Armstrong is exposed to the general populace to be the fraud that he is. He deserves it because of the things he has done to others. Unfortunately, people do not always get what they deserve, especially when they can afford any retainer and billable hour in existence. Mr Armstrong has made a lot of money prostituting cancer, and that money goes a long way. Our judicial system is not known for meading out justice to the wealthy. Some get busted, but just enough to make it appear to not be completely biased. Fact is, there are attorneys good enough to get a guy who pezzed his wife and left his footprints and DNA evidence at the scene off completely. Wealth makes all the difference in the world, and people should not believe that rule will be suspended now.

excellent post.

i spoke with a lawyer friend today who said that any lawyer (in a court of law) could poke holes in each individual piece of doping evidence against armstrong. he said we shouldn't destroy the man's name until it is proven in a court of law. i then asked him about OJ. and he said: "Oh, he was guilty as sin! Anyone can see that!"

hysterical.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Cal_Joe said:
Can you provide a link or other background on the tax evasion issue? From a legal standpoint I am interested in what some may term "collateral damage" issues.

Thank you.

Joe.

It is quite common for winners of the Tour to race post Tour crits and get paid in cash, a lot of cash. 100,000 Euros is not uncommon. Not declaring this cash, then using it to pay Dr. Ferrari is a good example of tax evasion.

Supposedly Mr. Armstrong was paying Dr. Ferrari $800,000 per year. Unless this was for interval workouts there is some explaining to do.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I think it worthwhile to also note that Armstrong is not the only target of the investigation if you are basing your assessment on what Floyd put in the emails. He names several names, and the things that spread from that could be a mile wide and an inch deep in many places.

My hope is that Armstrong is exposed to the general populace to be the fraud that he is. He deserves it because of the things he has done to others. Unfortunately, people do not always get what they deserve, especially when they can afford any retainer and billable hour in existence. Mr Armstrong has made a lot of money prostituting cancer, and that money goes a long way. Our judicial system is not known for meading out justice to the wealthy. Some get busted, but just enough to make it appear to not be completely biased. Fact is, there are attorneys good enough to get a guy who pezzed his wife and left his footprints and DNA evidence at the scene off completely. Wealth makes all the difference in the world, and people should not believe that rule will be suspended now.

Good post but it is "meting". The possible and hopeful difference for American justice is that several other people that made money (Kristin, Johan, Levi, etc) might crack under the pressure and upset the bubble LA lives in. OJ pretty much dealt with the witnesses.
 
bobs *** said:
You left out the 2 guys taking the biggest hit. Unemployed baseball player Barry Bonds. Go to Cooperstown and see the home run ball which passed Aaron. Anyone calling him up to work? Nope. He sat by the phone for a year waiting for a team to call the all-time home run hitter. Zip.

Baseball doesn't care about steroids.

Barry Bonds didn't get any phone calls and was forced to retire not because of the steroids scandal but because no one likes him.

He managed to alienate anyone who would have had interest in hiring him, and there was no player in the big leagues who wanted to be stuck in the locker next to his.

By the way, the big steroids scandal that threatened to put him in jail for however long lying to the Feds gets you is disintegrating as we speak. There was some important evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible in court, severely hampering the prosecution's case.

So much for that asterisk beside his home run record.

joe_papp said:
Really, the delay simply stems from a debate over technical details of the piece. Fact-checking/legal has already been taken care of...according to my understanding of the situation.

So when is this supposed news article going to appear? And what is supposed to be included in it? Anything new?

Is it going to be anything Earth-shattering or just more stuff like "here is a list of people the Feds may question?"

Because I really don't see any of the Doomsday scenarios some posters have been alluding to.

I see Armstrong riding the Tour like a happy little clam and nothing will come of these accusations.
 
joe_papp said:
Really, the delay simply stems from a debate over technical details of the piece. Fact-checking/legal has already been taken care of...according to my understanding of the situation.

It's weekend and yet next week seems soooooo long away.
Joe, I just wish I had your "understanding of the situation"... :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldman said:
Good post but it is "meting". The possible and hopeful difference for American justice is that several other people that made money (Kristin, Johan, Levi, etc) might crack under the pressure and upset the bubble LA lives in. OJ pretty much dealt with the witnesses.

Thanks for the correction. I knew it didn't sound right when I wrote it, but was too lazy to look it up.

I hope that one of those mentioned do crack, but I am not counting on it. I am guessing that only a small part of FLandis' revelations have been corroborated at this point. This isn't a Law and Order episode (not saying you are suggesting that, but some here seem a little ambitious in their need for speed), so, like several have said, this will be drawn out.

I also note that Mr Armstrong seems pretty cocky about not being caught. Last week, he was still tweeting the "never been busted, never will" mantra. He seems to believe that he is above it, and I don't think that is simply his ego talking. He is inside of all of this, and probably has a very good working knowledge of who has been talked to, and where things are going.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You would have to be rather naive to think that what Landis put in his email is Armstrong's only issue and the only evidence.

You know, what's annoying about you is that so many of your posts have to include some sort of insult or comment on another poster. Instead of simply commenting on the opinion expressed or the issue at hand directly, you have to brand the person who posted as naive or a fanboy or an apologist. I know this sort of thing is quite common on the internet, but most others here try to rise above typical internet forum behavior. Care to join them?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
stephens said:
You know, what's annoying about you is that so many of your posts have to include some sort of insult or comment on another poster. Instead of simply commenting on the opinion expressed or the issue at hand directly, you have to brand the person who posted as naive or a fanboy or an apologist. I know this sort of thing is quite common on the internet, but most others here try to rise above typical internet forum behavior. Care to join them?

How else should I characterize your post? I guess I could have written short sighted, perhaps that would have been nicer? Does the word "Hater" also stir up this same level of concern? Regardless of the choice of words it is rational to expect that the case against Armstrong is much wider then Landis and more then just doping.

It can be a challenge to converse when some otherwise intelligent people suspend rational thought because of their like, or dislike, of certain athletes. This issue is only enhanced by a lack of knowledge due to limited exposure to the sport.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
How else should I characterize your post?

That's the thing: you don't need to characterize it at all! You don't need to ascribe some sort of insulting negative adjective or criticism of the post or poster. All you need to do is say, "I don't see it that way. I think it's more likely that..." and state your case. Post about the issue at hand, not the opinions of other people!

That you feel that all who don't share your exact opinions must be lacking in intelligence or experience with the sport or must be fans of certain cyclists is also ridiculous. You need to step off your throne and admit that it's possible for those who are your intellectual equals to simply disagree with you on certain issues. And that they deserve to be treated with respect and that the debate shall be about the issues.
 
Berzin said:
So when is this supposed news article going to appear? And what is supposed to be included in it? Anything new?

Is it going to be anything Earth-shattering or just more stuff like "here is a list of people the Feds may question?"

Because I really don't see any of the Doomsday scenarios some posters have been alluding to.

I see Armstrong riding the Tour like a happy little clam and nothing will come of these accusations.

My "understanding" is that the story comes out b4 Le Grand Départ in Rotterdam and that it will be significant. I don't want to spoil it by detailing too much, or **** off a bunch of people by promising something that might somehow get excised. You'll have to stay tuned. But if everything goes off w/o a hitch, it should be a helluva story.
 
joe_papp said:
My "understanding" is that the story comes out b4 Le Grand Départ in Rotterdam and that it will be significant. I don't want to spoil it by detailing too much, or **** off a bunch of people by promising something that might somehow get excised. You'll have to stay tuned. But if everything goes off w/o a hitch, it should be a helluva story.

Joe, please stop now. You're just making the waiting worse - I don't think being ten and waiting for xmas was this bad...
 
stephens said:
That's the thing: you don't need to characterize it at all! You don't need to ascribe some sort of insulting negative adjective or criticism of the post or poster. All you need to do is say, "I don't see it that way. I think it's more likely that..." and state your case. Post about the issue at hand, not the opinions of other people!

That you feel that all who don't share your exact opinions must be lacking in intelligence or experience with the sport or must be fans of certain cyclists is also ridiculous. You need to step off your throne and admit that it's possible for those who are your intellectual equals to simply disagree with you on certain issues. And that they deserve to be treated with respect and that the debate shall be about the issues.

+1

Spot on!
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I also note that Mr Armstrong seems pretty cocky about not being caught. Last week, he was still tweeting the "never been busted, never will" mantra. He seems to believe that he is above it, and I don't think that is simply his ego talking. He is inside of all of this, and probably has a very good working knowledge of who has been talked to, and where things are going.

A major personality trait of sociopaths.:(
 

Lances_Closet

BANNED
Jun 27, 2010
29
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
.

I also note that Mr Armstrong seems pretty cocky about not being caught. Last week, he was still tweeting the "never been busted, never will" mantra. He seems to believe that he is above it, and I don't think that is simply his ego talking. He is inside of all of this, and probably has a very good working knowledge of who has been talked to, and where things are going.

The problem being he doesn't know what’s going on.

All witnesses sign a non-disclosure agreement for their testimony. They cannot talk to anyone. Lance knows nothing. He is very much in the dark on this one.

3friendsMex.jpg
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
What? When it serves the argument Lance is the all knowing king of the peloton, enforcer of omerta, buddies with government officials and the ultimate insider, and then when it doesn't serve the argument, he's out of the loop an incapable of knowing what certain others have told the authorities simply because of some sort of piece of paper that was signed?
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
That's the thing: you don't need to characterize it at all! You don't need to ascribe some sort of insulting negative adjective or criticism of the post or poster. All you need to do is say, "I don't see it that way. I think it's more likely that..." and state your case. Post about the issue at hand, not the opinions of other people!
That you feel that all who don't share your exact opinions must be lacking in intelligence or experience with the sport or must be fans of certain cyclists is also ridiculous. You need to step off your throne and admit that it's possible for those who are your intellectual equals to simply disagree with you on certain issues. And that they deserve to be treated with respect and that the debate shall be about the issues.

I'm sorry but you're way off base and your type of reasoning is the kind of thing that allows uneducated imbeciles like Sarah Palin to stand on equal footing in a debate with someone like Obama.

You're entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts. Fact is, Race Radio has a personal acquaintance with many of the people we are discussing here. Any position that Armstrong is not a doper, is simply untenable.

There is absolutely no debate on the issues here. The only issue that does exist is whether Armstrong is going to be held accountable for his fraud.

Just about the only thing up for discussion is the reasoning capacities of the participants of the forum.

It's clear that anyone who believes in Armstrong's innocence is either not aware of the facts, illogical, or overly emotionally involved in the final disposition of these crimes.:eek:
 

Lances_Closet

BANNED
Jun 27, 2010
29
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
What? When it serves the argument Lance is the all knowing king of the peloton, enforcer of omerta, buddies with government officials and the ultimate insider, and then when it doesn't serve the argument, he's out of the loop an incapable of knowing what certain others have told the authorities simply because of some sort of piece of paper that was signed?

Correct.



:::::