• 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 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Lances_Closet

BANNED
Jun 27, 2010
29
0
0
Visit site
Kodiak said:
In just about every story in any area of sports doping there is almost always someone who just can't keep their pie hole closed.

I have to say I've been most surprised how hush hush the media has been on this story. Doping stories of the past generally leak out all over the place.

Not this one. Just the one email.

I think many of the media outlets are taking a wait and see approach.

Its going to be ugly though.

Lance is not really a very nice person. What many don't know is Landis spoke long ago to the UCI. He also spoke to the Feds and 2 representives from the media back in Jan.

This was a set-up. Landis was being advised long ago on how to get Lance. The team place was part of the entire plot.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Lances_Closet said:
This was a set-up. Landis was being advised long ago on how to get Lance. The team place was part of the entire plot.

I have heard this more then a few times from some of Landis' friends. What exactly is meant by a set up?
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
Visit site
Lances_Closet said:
I have to say I've been most surprised how hush hush the media has been on this story. Doping stories of the past generally leak out all over the place.

Not this one. Just the one email.

I think many of the media outlets are taking a wait and see approach.

Its going to be ugly though.

Lance is not really a very nice person. What many don't know is Landis spoke long ago to the UCI. He also spoke to the Feds and 2 representives from the media back in Jan.

This was a set-up. Landis was being advised long ago on how to get Lance. The team place was part of the entire plot.

How do you know this exactly??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
I have heard this more then a few times from some of Landis' friends. What exactly is meant by a set up?

I think set-up is a bad choice of words, more erm, doing things in such a way that the people involved would eventually incriminate themselves.. ground work is probably a better phrase if my understanding is correct.

We already seen the attempt by armstrong of releasing the "tour of california" emails complete backfire on him.

samerics said:
How do you know this exactly??

landis hasnt been living in a box for the last year, he talks to people, they talk to people. Information isnt that hard for people with freinds to come by, but never ask them how they got it. ;)
 

Lances_Closet

BANNED
Jun 27, 2010
29
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
I think set-up is a bad choice of words, more erm, doing things in such a way that the people involved would eventually incriminate themselves.. ground work is probably a better phrase if my understanding is correct.
We already seen the attempt by armstrong of releasing the "tour of california" emails complete backfire on him.

Correct.


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

Haa :p sorry! You'll have to suck-it up like the rest of us! I'm waiting for a new HTC-HD2 that is supposed to be delivered tomorrow, and a big box of cycling kit from my friend Herke with NZCYCLING.CO.NZ (check out his killer specials on Vermarc clothing especially w/ the strength of the USD relative to the NZ$!), and both are equally agonizing! You can suffer right along w/ me and wait for the story as I wait like a magpie for my stuff! lol

Not to be a sobering voice, but...to put a bit of perspective into this: my federal case was relatively cut-and-dried, but it's dragged-on for nearly three years and still isn't wrapped-up. Anyone who thinks that the Landisgate investigation is likely to result in quick action against anyone who might be guilty of a crime might want to recalibrate their watches and prepare for a lengthier wait. Who knows, in the end it might be shown that there is no proof that L.A., Inc. did anything wrong, and he could give another speech reminiscent of his "I have a dream" Paris Podium Monologue '05.

The only thing I'm sure about is that I absolutely love riding my bike again. I mean I really love it. I got a bunch of very reasonably-priced Vermarc kit from Herke, and just today was posing around the park on my Pinarello whilst wearing this outfit.
 
I think the expectations of Armstrong landing in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison are unlikely. The real damage will be done in the court of public opinion, and that does not require a conviction or even an indictment. The media can tear him down on its own.

Armstrong is particularily susceptible to this because there is little appreciation for cycling. It is a fringe sport. People know that he won the Tour seven times, but they could not give details. Most could not give a description of the Tour other than it is a race in France. Athletes like Bonds and Woods played sports that have wide acceptance and viewership. The general public has an appreciation for their athletic accomplishments that Armstrong will never have because of the public's unfamiliarity with cycling. Thus Armstrong's reputation is almost entirely built upon the facade that his public relations people have created. If that facade crumbles then he does not have much to fall back on. The average American sports talking head does not have any respect for cycling, so his tainted victories will not count for much.

The current environment of public outrage over white collar fraud will form a nice frame around the picture of a man who deceived people with terminal disease to enrich himself.
 

Lances_Closet

BANNED
Jun 27, 2010
29
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Armstrong is particularily susceptible to this because there is little appreciation for cycling. It is a fringe sport. People know that he won the Tour seven times, but they could not give details. Most could not give a description of the Tour other than it is a race in France. Athletes like Bonds and Woods played sports that have wide acceptance and viewership. The general public has an appreciation for their athletic accomplishments that Armstrong will never have because of the public's unfamiliarity with cycling. Thus Armstrong's reputation is almost entirely built upon the facade that his public relations people have created. If that facade crumbles then he does not have much to fall back on. The average American sports talking head does not have any respect for cycling, so his tainted victories will not count for much.

The current environment of public outrage over white collar fraud will form a nice frame around the picture of a man who deceived people with terminal disease to enrich himself.


I agree.

He'll die a slow embarrassing death by media.

It’s too good of a story to let it ride. There are way too many salacious and dirty tales. The doping is only a small part of it. The trafficking; the leaning on younger athletes, the corruption, the recreational drug use and the prostitutes is the good stuff! The media will eat that s3it up. Shutting Floyd up when tested positive is a nice touch also. I really think Lance thought Floyd didn’t have it in him to tell the whole story.

To Tiger Woods. The man is destroyed. He can win every single major from now for the next 20 years but it won’t matter. Now he's seen as a sad person. People really don't want to associate themselves with Tiger. I can see Woods going the same way as John Daly. Give it 2 years. Winning won't give him anything anymore.

Lance will be the same. People will start coming out of the woodwork once some of the story comes out.

Once the WSJ story breaks then other media outlets will have to compete for their own exclusive and will start chasing up the leads in attempt to print their own version. Looking forward to it.
 
Apr 28, 2009
493
0
0
Visit site
Lances_Closet said:
I agree.

He'll die a slow embarrassing death by media.

It’s too good of a story to let it ride. There are way too many salacious and dirty tales. The doping is only a small part of it. The trafficking; the leaning on younger athletes, the corruption, the recreational drug use and the prostitutes is the good stuff! The media will eat that s3it up. Shutting Floyd up when tested positive is a nice touch also. I really think Lance thought Floyd didn’t have it in him to tell the whole story.

To Tiger Woods. The man is destroyed. He can win every single major from now for the next 20 years but it won’t matter. Now he's seen as a sad person. People really don't want to associate themselves with Tiger. I can see Woods going the same way as John Daly. Give it 2 years. Winning won't give him anything anymore.

Lance will be the same. People will start coming out of the woodwork once some of the story comes out.

Once the WSJ story breaks then other media outlets will have to compete for their own exclusive and will start chasing up the leads in attempt to print their own version. Looking forward to it.

I'm not sure about that. I think it all depends on what information is found and published. If the info relates mostly to doping and 'funny' money exchanges, i think the general public doesn't care. But if the info is salacious, ie recreational drugs, prostitutes, then the public will lap it up and the media will go after more stories.
 

Lances_Closet

BANNED
Jun 27, 2010
29
0
0
Visit site
Cherry Pie said:
That he's still riding may also be a plus. People will think he if can still do reasonably well at his age then it puts whatever happened in the past in context.

Correct. There is also a small race in France next week which might help the coverage. The ToC pushed the story to the back page the small race in France will push it to the front page.
 
BroDeal said:
I think the expectations of Armstrong landing in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison are unlikely. The real damage will be done in the court of public opinion, and that does not require a conviction or even an indictment. The media can tear him down on its own.

The current environment of public outrage over white collar fraud will form a nice frame around the picture of a man who deceived people with terminal disease to enrich himself
.

Here is what will happen if he's exposed once and for all-

1) The UCI will have to act on his "record", meaning that his wins will more than likely be null and void. Meaning, it will be as if those 7 years never happened at the Tour. Meaning, the record for most Tour wins will remain at 5.

2) He will get sued yet again by that company that he placed the bet with that he would win Tour number 6 or 7, I do not recall what that whole nonsense was about. But I do know that they did not want to pony up the loot because of drug suspicions. Who the hell bets millions of dollars on himself that he'd win a race? Am I the only one who finds this bizarre? Have there been any other Tour riders who've done something like this?

3) No more Armstrong Foundation. That will shrivel up and die, along with those million-dollar appearance fees and the $150,000-plus speaking engagements.

4) His name will be disgraced in the cycling world as long as there is a cycling world.

Here's a question for you guys-if Armstrong is exposed without a shadow of a doubt, what will happen to Dr. Ferarri and Bruyneel? These are really the guys who orchestrated this whole fraud along with Armstrong, what about them? Or am I getting too ahead of myself?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Hi BPC........... bye BPC.

Ha!!! That was fast. LOL!!!

Cherry Pie said:
Who will the TdF's be given to?

But the question is a legitimate one. I believe the owners of the Tour will have to wrestle with that one-maybe they'll do the right thing and declare no one at the top spot those 7 years. Just leave those podium places empty.

It certainly would be easier than to pass those victories to whichever rider came in second. We know those cats all had their own doping issues.

With the prize money long gone, it'd be better IMO to declare no one as the winner for those years and just leave it at that.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
scandal:

the return of the Hulk

cycling-doping.jpg


and lets not forget Lance's biker beans

Cheating-Cyclists.jpg


2394_TourDeFrancePhSpt_220.jpg
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
Here is what will happen if he's exposed once and for all.... Or am I getting too ahead of myself?

I remain constantly amazed at the crystal balls (no pun intended) on this forum.

It would help if you could clarify the "Here is what will happen" part -

a) This is what you want to happen.

b) This is what you know will happen. Like many other posters here, you have numerous inside contacts with US Federal agencies and reporters from the WSJ, and like other posters you are being briefed daily (sometimes hourly).

c) theHog is on "vacation", so you thought the forum was poorly lacking in posts where folks just make stuff up.

d) You were bored but decided to hit that "Submit Reply" button anyway.

Pick one. Egg roll is included with all menu choices.

Jeez.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
I remain constantly amazed at the crystal balls (no pun intended) on this forum.

It would help if you could clarify the "Here is what will happen" part -

a) This is what you want to happen.

b) This is what you know will happen. Like many other posters here, you have numerous inside contacts with US Federal agencies and reporters from the WSJ, and like other posters you are being briefed daily (sometimes hourly).

c) theHog is on "vacation", so you thought the forum was poorly lacking in posts where folks just make stuff up.

d) You were bored but decided to hit that "Submit Reply" button anyway.

Pick one. Egg roll is included with all menu choices.

Jeez.

People speculate about things. I am willing to bet you have a speculation about what will happen. How about becoming a member of the forum instead of just a critic of opinions you don't like, and proffer your own prognostication of the Landis revelations and what you think might happen. Forums are here for discussion of topics, not consistent flames about members with whom you disagree. You appear to be witty, put your mind to use in actually adding or discussing the topic. It will make it a better place for everyone.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
People speculate about things. I am willing to bet you have a speculation about what will happen.

In a previous life I was a member of the legal profession. Many of the posts in this forum since Flandis resurfaced concern legal issues. In my humble opinion, there appear to be two to three posters here who may have the same background, and anyone who has a clue realizes that in the legal world such speculation is basically bar talk. As I have posted somewhere here on some thread, speculation regarding possible outcome of a (potential) case without being fully grounded in all aspects of persons, depositions, case law, jurisdiction, and many other aspects is a major waste of time (unless you are at a good pub that has some decent Irish).

Thoughtforfood said:
How about becoming a member of the forum instead of just a critic of opinions you don't like...

I post infrequently on the racing threads. I read them frequently. As far as "opinions" I don't like, many of those are stated as fact, which I find to be different than opinions.

Thoughtforfood said:
...and proffer your own prognostication of the Landis revelations and what you think might happen.

What I think may happen is not worth the electrons. I have no clue. I am more interested in what will happen, and that is something we will all find out as events unfold, not through wishful thinking.

Thoughtforfood said:
Forums are here for discussion of topics, not consistent flames about members with whom you disagree.

I promise not to flame if you will do the same.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
In a previous life I was a member of the legal profession. Many of the posts in this forum since Flandis resurfaced concern legal issues. In my humble opinion, there appear to be two to three posters here who may have the same background, and anyone who has a clue realizes that in the legal world such speculation is basically bar talk. As I have posted somewhere here on some thread, speculation regarding possible outcome of a (potential) case without being fully grounded in all aspects of persons, depositions, case law, jurisdiction, and many other aspects is a major waste of time (unless you are at a good pub that has some decent Irish).

Funny, I am on the cusp of beginning law school. However, to discuss Landis' accusations, and what might happen because of them is merely a topic on a forum. I think everyone knows that their predictions are only that. I don't think anyone seriously believes they know how this will play out. They are talking about possibilities. Its like discussing who might win a stage before the stage ends. We all do it, but nobody seems all up in arms about those predictions. Lets face it, there are an incredible number of variables regarding any given event that can affect the outcome, yet we all still try to predict things. Also, on the other foot, there are plenty of Armstrong fans who believe Armstrong will come out unscathed. I don't hear you offering response to their posts with as much veracity as you do people who do not like Armstrong.

Cal_Joe said:
I post infrequently on the racing threads. I read them frequently. As far as "opinions" I don't like, many of those are stated as fact, which I find to be different than opinions.

It is a fairly common trait among humans to consider their opinions as facts to themselves. I would suggest that you could discover that you too fall prey to this phenomenon.

Cal_Joe said:
What I think may happen is not worth the electrons. I have no clue. I am more interested in what will happen, and that is something we will all find out as events unfold, not through wishful thinking.

Sorry, I don't believe you have no opinion on the topic. It does appear that you would rather feign and elevated status in regards to that because of your recent proclamations regarding those who offer opinion on the topic, but I am willing to bet you have a formed opinion already in place.

Cal_Joe said:
I promise not to flame if you will do the same.

I hope you do not consider any of the above to be a "flame." I respect that you are an obviously intelligent person, and that you are entitled to address the subject from any perspective you choose. I would just suggest that it is belittling to attach meaning and commentary on the opinions of others when you could easily not read threads that are ridiculous to you, or you could participate as a member instead of as a critic.

All that being said, the topic of the thread has wandered from the original purpose (thin as it was), but hey, it is a forum. That is what happens here.
 
Cal_Joe said:
I remain constantly amazed at the crystal balls (no pun intended) on this forum.

It would help if you could clarify the "Here is what will happen" part -

a) This is what you want to happen.

b) This is what you know will happen. Like many other posters here, you have numerous inside contacts with US Federal agencies and reporters from the WSJ, and like other posters you are being briefed daily (sometimes hourly).

c) theHog is on "vacation", so you thought the forum was poorly lacking in posts where folks just make stuff up.

d) You were bored but decided to hit that "Submit Reply" button anyway.

Pick one. Egg roll is included with all menu choices.

Jeez.

I pick none of the above, because the choices you offer are trolling in nature.

You present yourself as just another bemused outsider, above the fray, coming on an internet forum where speculation, opinion and innuendo are par for the course to offer...what exactly? Nothing but baiting remarks.

Unfortunately for you your knowledge of the law has no bearing on an internet forum where opinions are tossed about like salads.

So here are YOUR choices-

A) STFU if you have nothing to add.
If you don't have the aptitude to post a point/counterpoint to the discussion at hand (something I'm sure you must have learned in law school if you even attended), spare me your idiotic attacks. They are transparent, trite and serve to obfuscate from the original points being discussed. But that is typical troll behavior-make the discussion personal and muddy the waters to cause confusion.

B) Don't patronize. State your obvious stance on the subject which is, "I exist on this forum for one purpose only-to defend my man-crush of Lance Armstrong".

C) Try engaging in the conversation. As was stated by someone who responded with a bit more eloquence than you deserve, you have an opinion? You don't need all the facts at hand to have one. That's why it's called AN OPINION. State it. Or...

D) Refer to point A.

Would you like duck sauce or soy sauce with that turd eggroll you're about to stuff in your mouth?
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
So we're good to go then and we can get back on topic - although I am not sure there ever was a topic in this thread! ;)

Terry
Moderator

Moderation is appreciated here. Sometimes I have the urge to start a post with something like "STFU", but I know that the mods would not look kindly on that, so forum moderation does help temper posts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
c) theHog is on "vacation", so you thought the forum was poorly lacking in posts where folks just make stuff up.

You do realise the Hogs vacation is all a cover up dont you? He's been approached by the Feds for evidence and had to be kept quiet. Susan works for the feds, and just silenced him for a few weeks in case he gave away too much.