• 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 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
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:


But that's the thing: I've never said anything of the sort. So all of the above is in no way justification for insulting me as a poster. I'm happy to admit that I don't like Armstrong and that I'm quite comfortable believing he does things that are against the written rules (though not the traditional rules) of the sport.

Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying that Lance will be held accountable for years and years and they've so far been wrong. And they over estimate how much the "general public" and "cycling fans" in general really care about this issue and they characterize "cheating" in ways that most people don't
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Again, you're wrong

stephens said:
What? When it serves the argument Lance is the all knowing king of the peloton,

It's not about, "when it serves the argument." It's about, things change, players change, power shifts, dynamics change. Go by what's actually happening rather than how you would wish for things to turn out.


stephens said:
enforcer of omerta,

He wasn't? Bassons, Walsh, Simeoni, Kimmage, LeMond. Crazy bs speeches from the Tour podium

stephens said:
buddies with government officials,

Clinton, Giuliani, GWB, Sarkozy, Rudd, and others....

stephens said:
and the ultimate insider,

LA was looking to buy the friggen tour for goodness sake. He's giving large sums to the UCI for "testing."

stephens said:
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?

Novitzky is a new player who evidently doesn't give a $hit about what happened before.

If this thing ends quietly you're really going to think that LA is innocent?:rolleyes:
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
But that's the thing: I've never said anything of the sort. So all of the above is in no way justification for insulting me as a poster. I'm happy to admit that I don't like Armstrong and that I'm quite comfortable believing he does things that are against the written rules (though not the traditional rules) of the sport.

Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying that Lance will be held accountable for years and years and they've so far been wrong. And they over estimate how much the "general public" and "cycling fans" in general really care about this issue and they characterize "cheating" in ways that most people don't

I've looked at some of your previous posts and you always seem to be playing these intellectual bank shots about what LA's legal strategy should be, or that doping doesn't hurt the marketability of cycling, or how Lance should just tell the Feds to eff off.

Maybe you can tell me exactly what a 'guy like Race Radio is like.' That seems like a thinly veiled insult to me.

Also, you're wishful definition of cheating is another oblique attack on people who are against clear fraud.:D
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
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.

A little question that perhaps you know the answer to, will the article be featured online at the same date, or do I need to go out and search somewhere where they sell the WSJ? And the one of that precise day at that.
 

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.


Dig dig dig.

"Reading here in L'Equipe that AFLD decided against any drug controls for the French TT championships.
about 13 hours ago via UberTwitter"
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Buckwheat, I was not doubting the beliefs of Lance's power and influence one bit. I was criticizing the idea that he now has no idea what is being said about him in testimony. And I don't believe Novitzky is quite the power that some believe he is and has had some troubles in the past himself.

Let me break down my opinions once and for all so that we are clear.

1) the riders should be in charge of rule creation and enforcement should be carried out in their name, and only in as invasive a manner as they see fit, and not for the advantage of the suits that only seek to make money off of the efforts of the athletes.

2) a timely, positive test by the acknowledged testing authority is one thing: "evidence" of doping by back testing of old samples, innuendo, he-said-she-said testimony, association with convicted riders or dealers or doctors, and so on is something totally different. 2a) the public wants the former and is not particularly interested in the latter.

3) being convicted of perjury or tax evasion or anything of the sort should be seen as an embarrassment for the sporting body just as getting capone for tax evasion was an embarrassment for law enforcement. either you catch the guy breaking the rules of the sport, or you don't. *never tested positive* will trump all for many, many, many sports fans and large swatches of the public. this is why i've said that if the bribery to cover up an actual positive test can be proven, then the reputation of armstrong will really be damaged worse than anything. that'd be way worse than a positive test because if violates the publics concept of fair play (i.e. you're not really breaking the rules until you get caught, but if caught you must serve the penalty).

4) i assume armstrong has been using blood doping for a decade. i'm not particularly a fan of his as i'm more of a classics fan than a tdf fan anyway, but i acknowledge that surely all his rivals are similarly enhanced and as my signature says "the thirst is greater than the rules" and it has always been such in cycling. I'm fine with that and it does nothing to lessen my love of the sport. i also don't find it necessarily any more dangerous than other things we expect athletes to do, nor the things many of us do in the course of our own lines of work or recreational lives.

5) i'm not persuaded that lance is some sort of super responder and that if all riders were clean he'd be in the back of the pack. the idea that once upon a time he wasn't as good, then suddenly became better is not evidence of super responder to me, as every rider is less than a champion until they become a champion. the obviousness of this point is somehow lost on some members here.

6) overall I feel that the demonization of this one rider over all others is silly and the idea that it is done so "for the good of the sport" is not convincing to me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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?

My argument is that he is the ultimate insider in some ways, and that he would most likely know details of what is happening. He has some powerful friends because of the reach of Livestrong, and certainly has people who are close to anyone being spoken to by the Feds, and would most likely have some pretty good grapevine info. He wouldn't know much from people who actually spoke with the Feds because you don't mess with a Federal investigation, and divulging info given in questioning is a no no. But I am sure he is very aware of some of the details.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
stephens said:
But that's the thing: I've never said anything of the sort. So all of the above is in no way justification for insulting me as a poster. I'm happy to admit that I don't like Armstrong and that I'm quite comfortable believing he does things that are against the written rules (though not the traditional rules) of the sport.

Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying that Lance will be held accountable for years and years and they've so far been wrong. And they over estimate how much the "general public" and "cycling fans" in general really care about this issue and they characterize "cheating" in ways that most people don't

Again, you are inventing something that is not there. As you are unable to discuss the topic so you instead try to paint me as an insult filled "Hater". Your post was naive, or misinformed, or short sighted. Take your pick. Save the drama.

You would be wrong to say that I have said for years that Armstrong would be held accountable, in fact quite the opposite. I have said many times that as long as the UCI is unwilling to address the issue that Armstrong will escape sanction. The UCI's serial incompetence does not mean that people are unable to review the information available and come to an rational conclusion.

With the Fed's involved the story changes. You cannot give the Feds a $500,000 "Donation". They have no interested in how Armstrong's legal issues may effect the sport. From what I have seen, and heard, this is a very serious issue. One that is not going to be brushed aside so easily.

As for who is talking, there are plenty of people talking to the Feds....and none of them are talking publicly, or privately about it unless they want to get themselves in a legal entanglement.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
I agree with that and even believe he has more info about what is being said to the feds than people here might believe. We live in an age of "leaks".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
But that's the thing: I've never said anything of the sort. So all of the above is in no way justification for insulting me as a poster. I'm happy to admit that I don't like Armstrong and that I'm quite comfortable believing he does things that are against the written rules (though not the traditional rules) of the sport.

Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying that Lance will be held accountable for years and years and they've so far been wrong. And they over estimate how much the "general public" and "cycling fans" in general really care about this issue and they characterize "cheating" in ways that most people don't

He hasn't, and characterizing him in that way is just as much of an insult as calling someone a name. You are supposing information about someone, and have not proof or knowledge of that which you propose. There is a level of dishonesty in that, and that is as offensive as calling someone an "idiot." If you are going to play forum police, start by cleaning your side of the street first.

And I have not heard him over "characterize" anything. He expresses his opinion, but that is far from supposing what the general populace thinks. What he is saying, and so am I, is that it would be fitting, for someone who has treated people in the manner Mr Armstrong has, to be exposed for being the fraud he has so aggressively and destructively hidden.

Sorry, but some of us here do know (or in my case, are acquainted with) people who have been affected by him, and would like to see him suffer for having done so.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You would be wrong to say that I have said for years that Armstrong would be held accountable

I would be wrong if I were to actually say that. Which of course I did not. I said, "Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying ..." Recognizing the difference is important in discourse.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Sorry, but some of us here do know (or in my case, are acquainted with) people who have been affected by him, and would like to see him suffer for having done so.

Unfortunately for you there are many more people who have been positively affected by him and so on balance he comes out quite less of a demon than some here would like to see him.

But I apologize is I was putting words in your mouth or RaceRadios mouth (you are different people, right? i get confused when there is talk of several posters really being the same person). It becomes hard to differentiate from all you guys because you speak with nearly one mind some times that I can't remember who is who. It just comes across as a wall of sound.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
stephens said:
I would be wrong if I were to actually say that. Which of course I did not. I said, "Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying ..." Recognizing the difference is important in discourse.

As guys like me have not been saying that then again you would be wrong.

You really should focus less on your dislike of certain posters and try to address the topic.
 
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.

I sort of figured in advance you weren't going to give too much away, which is cool. No need to get people exited over what may not get published.

Just the fact that we now have some sort of timeline for the next potential bombshell is good enough for me.

Thanks Joe.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
Unfortunately for you there are many more people who have been positively affected by him and so on balance he comes out quite less of a demon than some here would like to see him.

But I apologize is I was putting words in your mouth. It becomes hard to differentiate from all you guys because you speak with nearly one mind some times that I can't remember who is who. It just comes across as a wall of sound.

It is not unfortunate for me that some people believe the lie of Armstrong. That doesn't affect me in the slightest, and does nothing to counter the damage he has done, as those people damaged by him didn't get the benefit of Livestrong. It is akin to saying "yea, he beats his kids, but its cool because he gives money at church." I guess if your level of moral relativism is that, then I can only say that you and I are different.

You didn't put words in my mouth at all. You put words in RR's mouth. However, if you had expressed that I have said all along he would be busted, they you too would have been wrong.

As for some "united front" conspiracy, that too is a fallacy created to obfuscate the fact that you have failed to present anything resembling a coherent point of view on the subject. For someone who claims to not be a fan, you sure do defend him quite vociferously. Excuse me if I failed to see the dispassioned commentary coming from you. Also note that much of what any of us who do not bye the Armstrong myth quote is the same because the sources that proved to us his myth are the same. Call me crazy, but quoting the information known to all of us on a collective level individually does not a conspiracy make. It just means we have all read the same damning evidence.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
One thing I have found interesting it the lack of real, confirmed, information on the investigation. All participants are held to strict confidentially. I have friends who normally would discuss anything with me say "Don't even ask" when this topic comes up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
I would be wrong if I were to actually say that. Which of course I did not. I said, "Guys like RaceRadio have probably been saying ..." Recognizing the difference is important in discourse.

Saying something, but adding enough deniability to claim you didn't say it is dishonest discourse. It is rhetorical gymnastics, but what is really being said is what is really being said. Own it, and your points will have more validity.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
One thing I have found interesting it the lack of real, confirmed, information on the investigation. All participants are held to strict confidentially. I have friends who normally would discuss anything with me say "Don't even ask" when this topic comes up.

Because messing with a Federal investigation is not something anyone would take lightly. However, I am sure Mr Armstrong has third party information seeing that he is a principal in this case.
 
Mar 12, 2009
349
0
0
Visit site
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.

Jeez Joe, you're killing me man! I can't wait that long. Tellmetellmetellmetellme pleeeeze!
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
marinoni said:
Jeez Joe, you're killing me man! I can't wait that long. Tellmetellmetellmetellme pleeeeze!

Someone in another Lance topic said tuesday, so perhaps it goes live at that time. If it is only in the printed copy could someone scan it in and post it here, or somewhere else on the internet and just pm me. I do not know where I can find the WSJ around here, don't even know if anyone carries it. At least if this is within the tos of this forum
 
Jun 20, 2010
181
0
0
Visit site
What I don't get is the lack of leaks in this case. For years the Federal Government has leaked more than a seive with all the "not cleared to speak to the media" written into every leak story in the media today. the only true secret is the one only known by one. If there is a purging about to happen in the Pro Teams then get it on.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Kodiak said:
What I don't get is the lack of leaks in this case. For years the Federal Government has leaked more than a seive with all the "not cleared to speak to the media" written into every leak story in the media today. the only true secret is the one only known by one. If there is a purging about to happen in the Pro Teams then get it on.

Most leaks do not happen until much later in the case. Right now prosecutors are trying to build a case and have willing participants. It helps them to have as little information as possible in the public domain and available to their target.

As this moves along if leaking information helps either side of the case push it in a favorable direction I would expect to hear more.
 
Jun 20, 2010
181
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Most leaks do not happen until much later in the case. Right now prosecutors are trying to build a case and have willing participants. It helps them to have as little information as possible in the public domain and available to their target.

As this moves along if leaking information helps either side of the case push it in a favorable direction I would expect to hear more.

Agreed. But for some of the media *****s out there they will try and keep the interest up in the media for the sake of seeing thier own names in print.