• 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!

Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 19, 2009
278
0
0
Visit site
Crashes and punctures said:
You totally misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm not claiming for a second that Armstrong will have the support of all cancer survivors. I'm making a totally different point. My point was people generally think cancer charities and philanthropy are a good thing and that will massively effect how Armstrong is seen.

That some people on cycling news don't like his charity and think he uses it to protect himself and gain more money is totally irrelevent to how ordinary people will see it. Do you see? You should not get angry and rude with me just for pointing that out.

I do not think I missed anything....you said the "public at large". Do you have an insight to this? Are you taking daily polls?
You are an idiot. The "ordinary" people in America on the frontlines of cancer do not care about LA. They care about the patients they see on a daily basis.
Yep Cancer charities and philanthropy are great. Choose wisely who you give the money too though. In the US there are numerous "charities" that do jack squat.
I would not give a dime to livestrong.org but I bet you are wearing a livestrong bracelet.

Let me get you some lube.
 
Jul 13, 2010
48
0
0
Visit site
Big Doopie said:
i love it. the guy who grows a conscience is "emotionally unstable", but the sociopathic liar and all the others who continue to commit fraud are supposedly "normal".

Often whistle blowers, or whatever want to call Landis, are maverick type people who are unreliable and unstable, which is why they end up cracking and telling the truth. The more stable and quiet characters, like Levi for instance, aren't likely to do that.

It's not a smear or a claim Landis is lying. It's not news that Landis has no middle ground. That's what has made him so dangerous to Armstrong.

I do not think Armstrong is 'normal' either - everybody that knows him says he is a strong character that carries around grudges, is very calculated and is a one off in how he operates. But he is not emotionally unstable in the sense that would suddenly one day "crack" and reverse everything he has ever said. It's just different things.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
roadfreak44 said:
So you know what Hmailton will say?
interesting.. I need you to pick six numbers each between one and 99..

You fanboys are in a sad, sad state right now huh? Bad days indeed.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Crashes and punctures said:
Thanks for answering my question.

But that's your opinion of how the legal authorities should handle this, not what will happen.

It seems that if they were to prove the doping got the federal funds then it opens up the argument about how prevalent doping was in the sport and whether that meant they had to dope to stop other teams unfairly depriving them of a federal sponsor. Do you see? There are so many ways to defend it so passing the fraud bench mark with a jury seems like a tough challenge if it's not directly about proving they doped.

Then on top of everything else Armstrong is so good at presenting himself. I spoke to my dad at the time of the riders presentation before the tour and he remarked how he liked the like the way Armstrong was so clear and engaging compared to the mumbling's of other team leaders who looked like they're rather be anywhere else and had nothing much to say. Armstrong does come across very well to ordinary people who don't know much about the sport.

Yes, this is my opinion.

On your other points you are wrong.

What everyone else was doing is immaterial and invalid, as far as arguments go. Breaking the law is breaking the law. The issue will be if they have enough eye witness testimony, detailed corroboration and specific material evidence (whether financial or physical) to prove the scheme. That they are moving so swiftly, so directly, tells me they do. No, I don't see there is any way to spin this. It is not spinnable.

Whether Armstrong comes off well during a team presentation is quite a different thing than how he will be treated during a true, and serious, procedure at the US Federal level. It is not a place where your smooth-guy or tough-guy "act' really gets you anywhere. Except jail.

This issue is a dimension far outside of what an athlete can simply shrug off. This is very serious stuff. Simply, it is as serious as it gets.
 
Jul 13, 2010
48
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
No it won't. Revelation of the truth is NEVER a bad thing.

Well that's obviously not true. What you mean if you believe that it won't be bad in this case. But we can all think of instances where revelations can have more bad consequences than good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Crashes and punctures said:
Well that's obviously not true. What you mean if you believe that it won't be bad in this case. But we can all think of instances where revelations can have more bad consequences than good.

No. The consequences are only bad to people who are unwilling to accept the truth, be it the liar who keeps on lying, or the fanboy who has to deal with the fact that they have supported a fraud. But in reality, truth is NEVER a bad thing. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
No one who was subpoened was named, but Hamilton said that if he was subpoenaed then he would fully cooperate. That is practically an invitation to be first in line for a subpoena.

I want a subpoena.. please miss.. Me me me me me
raised-hands.jpg


BroDeal said:
None of these guys will want to land in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison to protect Armstrong. A few people talking forces everyone one to talk. No one will want to be the one guy who maintains the lie and earns the ire of the prosecutor..

and logic dictates someone is going to talk so it might as well be "me"
 
Crashes and punctures said:
Well that's obviously not true. What you mean if you believe that it won't be bad in this case. But we can all think of instances where revelations can have more bad consequences than good.

What? Put your drink down, sober up and re-read your statement. So I guess the truth won't be setting you free..
 
Jul 13, 2010
48
0
0
Visit site
cyclestationgiuseppe said:
I do not think I missed anything....you said the "public at large". Do you have an insight to this? Are you taking daily polls?
You are an idiot. The "ordinary" people in America on the frontlines of cancer do not care about LA. They care about the patients they see on a daily basis.
Yep Cancer charities and philanthropy are great. Choose wisely who you give the money too though. In the US there are numerous "charities" that do jack squat.
I would not give a dime to livestrong.org but I bet you are wearing a livestrong bracelet.

Let me get you some lube.

I don't think it's necessary to be so rude and insulting. If you have a good point then it should stand alone.

But you're again making the same mistake. Yes, YOU dislike Armstrong and his charity because you think he uses it to protect him, don't like how it operates etc.

Well it's actually rated as a good charity that gives lots of grants and helps people will cancer, but you're entitled to that view. But my point is, and I confess I don't have opinion poll data at hand to back this up, that most ordinary people won't be looking into this in depth either way - they will just conclude that using your fame to set up a cancer charity and do good is a good thing. That's of course the very reason why you don't like what Armstrong has done - because you know that's how people will think.

I think we sort of agree but you're just coming at it from a different angle.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldman said:
Jesse "the Body" Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota. He took steroids. Arnold "Terminator" Schwarzenegger is current governor of California. He took steriods.

But to be fair, Jesse ventura didnt cheat his way to 7 world wrestling titles whilst all the time claiming to be clean. He didnt set up a cancer foundation to save the world, and as far as I know jesse has not worked his way around countless women while still married. As far as i know the only thing Jesse did particularly wrong was have a very bad gimic and do some pretty poor acting in Predator.

Schwarznegger again, was just a body builder who appeared in films. Of course he took steroids. But again, he never spent his entire career denying steroid use and making money from charity.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
Don't want to sound flippant, but now it's clear why Armstrong fell of his bike three times/was in three incidents yesterday. Once, okay, but three times??

He will have heard prob. in the prev. 1-2 days through his grapevine/lawyer of some of his own people or others who might have been subpoenaed already.

He must have been riding with that in his mind, cogitating on the grand jury, not the road.
 
Oldman said:
Jesse "the Body" Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota. He took steroids. Arnold "Terminator" Schwarzenegger is current governor of California. He took steriods.
George W Bush was elected governor of Texas and President of the United States, twice. He should have taken steriods but just drank and snorted coke.
Lance may be lying about taking drugs and beating people and profitted from cancer charities.

The first three didn't lie about their PED's.

but none of the above were using PED's while having a "tax payer's sponsor"

BTW I'm really surprised how fast the investigation is moving ahead-I'm wondering if Landis started talking to the Feds in 09....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tockit said:
Lance is basically a household name.
.

No hes not :D
25piknq.jpg

The woman thought it might be boardman initially because she'd heard of him, and settled on indurain because he sounded french. She didnt even consider lance armstrong as an answer.
 
Jul 13, 2010
48
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
No. The consequences are only bad to people who are unwilling to accept the truth, be it the liar who keeps on lying, or the fanboy who has to deal with the fact that they have supported a fraud. But in reality, truth is NEVER a bad thing. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

But that's obviously not right. Say you're in a war and your buddy just got hit. The wound is bad and he is about to die, but he pleades with you to tell him he's going to be okay. In that instance it's probably a better thing to tell him he's going to be make it.

There are countless examples we can think of. There are terrorists roaming about on the loose somewhere but the authorities don't know exactly where they are or when they will strike. In that case it's probably better not to panic the public by telling them this since it won't make any difference.

A women is dying of cancer and has a few days to live, but you notice her husband is having an affair. You meet the wife and she asks you if she has seen her husband. It's probably better just to lie that you did not see her husband and not ruin her final hours alive. And so on.

We digress but truth certainly is not always a good thing. What you meant to say is truth is good in THIS case. That's not true either though....
 
Jul 13, 2010
48
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
What everyone else was doing is immaterial and invalid, as far as arguments go. Breaking the law is breaking the law.

But you said before that doping itself was not breaking the law and won't be the issue of the case. It's whether the doping somehow gained the team an advantage that they wouldn't have otherwise, and got them the federal money - the technicality that is the reason this investigation managed to get off the starting blocks.

Now, I know a lot of you would say he did get a special advantage - magic man Ferrari, etc - but a very good argument can be made that doping did not do this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Crashes and punctures said:
But that's obviously not right. Say you're in a war and your buddy just got hit. The wound is bad and he is about to die, but he pleades with you to tell him he's going to be okay. In that instance it's probably a better thing to tell him he's going to be make it.

You wouldn't know if he were going to die or not. You don't know the absolute truth.

Crashes and punctures said:
There are countless examples we can think of. There are terrorists roaming about on the loose somewhere but the authorities don't know exactly where they are or when they will strike. In that case it's probably better not to panic the public by telling them this since it won't make any difference.

Stupid scenario. You are not lying. If you went to any official and asked "are there terrorists out that that you do not know the whereabouts of?" and they would tell you "yes." In fact, they say it all of the time.

Crashes and punctures said:
A women is dying of cancer and has a few days to live, but you notice her husband is having an affair. You meet the wife and she asks you if she has seen her husband. It's probably better just to lie that you did not see her husband and not ruin her final hours alive. And so on.

It isn't up to you to tell. It is up to the husband, and if he were to come clean before her death, it would be beneficial. He would have come clean before her death, and would much more easily deal with his lies, and she would know the truth...but I am pretty sure it would not matter nearly as much to her as the fact that she was dying in a few days.

Crashes and punctures said:
We digress but truth certainly is not always a good thing. What you meant to say is truth is good in THIS case. That's not true either though....

It is ALWAYS a good thing, and lies are ALWAYS a bad thing. Again, you wouldn't understand this because you are mentally ill, and reality is not something you are remotely familiar with.

Okay, now I am done responding to you. Toodles psycho!
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Publicas put this link in the "links thread," but it needs its own thread. Hamilton will bring the house down. He was there from the beginning and saw the transformation of the team when Armstrong, Bruyneel, and the ONCE doctors came aboard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/cycling/14cyclinginquiry.html?_r=1&hpw

There's going to have to be more than just what people say I think. Landis has a tough row to hoe with his denials, etc as credible witness in court. Tyler too with his lame explanation of his doping.

Be interesting to see if any other riders crack under a federal subpoena. They'll need a Frankie or Vaughters I think.

I wonder if there are any smoking guns?
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
But to be fair, Jesse ventura didnt cheat his way to 7 world wrestling titles whilst all the time claiming to be clean. He didnt set up a cancer foundation to save the world, and as far as I know jesse has not worked his way around countless women while still married. As far as i know the only thing Jesse did particularly wrong was have a very bad gimic and do some pretty poor acting in Predator.

Schwarznegger again, was just a body builder who appeared in films. Of course he took steroids. But again, he never spent his entire career denying steroid use and making money from charity.

Jesse Ventura was also a Navy Seal in the Vietnam War.
Lance - well, Lance gave Jan "The Look."

:p
 
Cobblestones said:
You can only take the fifth when implicating yourself, not when called as witness against someone unrelated.

When you refuse to answer questions about someone related to the probe, you can go to jail for contempt of court. That is what happened to Barry Bonds trainer Greg Anderson.

Don't think Hincapie, Hamilton, Vaughters and others would willingly risk jail. Lance is going to need to coordinate all their actions to avoid them speaking out. Find it hard to believe he can do it.
 
Jul 13, 2010
48
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
You wouldn't know if he were going to die or not. You don't know the absolute truth.

If they are experienced and knew the wound was fatal, it would be lying. I think you dodged this.


Stupid scenario. You are not lying. If you went to any official and asked "are there terrorists out that that you do not know the whereabouts of?" and they would tell you "yes." In fact, they say it all of the time.

But there can be a scenario where the official would lie about the nature of the threat for the public good.

It isn't up to you to tell. It is up to the husband, and if he were to come clean before her death, it would be beneficial. He would have come clean before her death, and would much more easily deal with his lies, and she would know the truth...but I am pretty sure it would not matter nearly as much to her as the fact that she was dying in a few days.

So, if I'm reading that correct, you would lie in that instance by saying you hadn't seen him, leaving it for the husband to decide. That's agreeing with me.

It is ALWAYS a good thing, and lies are ALWAYS a bad thing. Again, you wouldn't understand this because you are mentally ill, and reality is not something you are remotely familiar with.

It's not always a good thing, as you seem to agree. There are cases where it's not. Here's another one.

Say,there is someone you really hate on cycling news and you don't want to give them the satisfaction of believing you are reading their posts. A little white lie about putting them on your ignore list might be necessary.

Going back to the issue, the truth was always going to come out one day as riders retired and got older and it was no longer such a hot issue. I'm sure Armstrong expects that. But how truth comes out and the manner in which it does, can be unfair. The truth coming now is unfair on Armstrong and on cycling.

Is unfairness always wrong? I'll have to think about that one....
 
Apr 19, 2009
278
0
0
Visit site
Crashes and punctures said:
I don't think it's necessary to be so rude and insulting. If you have a good point then it should stand alone.

But you're again making the same mistake. Yes, YOU dislike Armstrong and his charity because you think he uses it to protect him, don't like how it operates etc.

Well it's actually rated as a good charity that gives lots of grants and helps people will cancer, but you're entitled to that view. But my point is, and I confess I don't have opinion poll data at hand to back this up, that most ordinary people won't be looking into this in depth either way - they will just conclude that using your fame to set up a cancer charity and do good is a good thing. That's of course the very reason why you don't like what Armstrong has done - because you know that's how people will think.

I think we sort of agree but you're just coming at it from a different angle.

It is not that I dislike LA. However I do not "trust" him or his minions due to the fact that they are liars, cheaters and the perpetrators of fraud. And you are correct that "ordinary" people just do not give a crap about your hero. In fact they care even less about cycling.You seem to know so much about what the public thinks you must be a politician.
We are definitely coming from different angles and you have gone off on some totally unreasonable tangent.
Again, get a phone book and call any oncologist in the book and he/she will enlighten you about the real fight against cancer, then get out your checkbook and shut the Fuc% up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Beech Mtn said:
Jesse Ventura was also a Navy Seal in the Vietnam War.
Lance - well, Lance gave Jan "The Look."

:p

And jesse got to wear the pink jersey.. something lance never did
jesse-the-body.jpg