The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Berzin]

Very enlightening how a discussion of the 'warm-up' NYT article gets derailed by a single Armstrong apologist.

Goober is lying. He is doing this, like I said, to derail the truth of the matter.

The "source" of the e-mail he received is more than likely his crack pipe.

"Crack Is Wack", Goober-haven't you ever heard that phrase?

 

[Barrus]

Ah, than I was correct at first with ignoring him.

BTW who's going out at 5 to score us all a copy of the WSJ?

 

[python]

what i should or should not *expect* when reading shouldn't concern you as it does not concern me what you *expect* when reading.

i read the article, absorb the news (if there is any)and go on.

in fact, the are some new and interesting facts in the article. they confirmed my own sources.

 

[goober]

Goober is lying. He is doing this, like I said, to derail the truth of the matter.

The "source" of the e-mail he received is more than likely his crack pipe.

"Crack Is Wack", Goober-haven't you ever heard that phrase?

Yes everything I said was a lie - I am derailing the mythical truth so many are trying to believe in this small community called the clinic. Chad is passing me his pipe right now - gotta run.

 

[Zoncolan]

I agree with most of you. Probably DZ and Hincapie.
I would love for one of the guys to be on LA's team though.
Imagine that?! Horner or Leecheimer stabbing him in the back.

As for goober, just ignore him. It's obvious he doesn't want to discuss anything, just trolling.

 

[FKLance]

what i should or should not *expect* when reading shouldn't concern you as it does not concern me what you *expect* when reading.

i read the article, absorb the news (if there is any)and go on.

in fact, the are some new and interesting facts in the article. they confirmed my own sources.

Yes you are right, it's none of my business!
Do you mean the WSJ article?

Isn't it almost 5 in the us? anyone with WSJ?

 

[python]

Goober is lying. He is doing this, like I said, to derail the truth of the matter.

The "source" of the e-mail he received is more than likely his crack pipe.

"Crack Is Wack", Goober-haven't you ever heard that phrase?

ignore him, dont quote him. he feeds off the attention he seeks. contribute your thoughts and ideas instead.

yes, it is likely the big george, dave z and vaughters spilled some beans. rather obvious why a reporter would be careful with the wording. as usual, it gives spinners an opportunity.

 

[Nearly]

I agree with most of you. Probably DZ and Hincapie.

DZ + his DS Matt White (encouraged by JV)? [Even if White is not a US citizen.]

 

[Barrus]

Today's WSJ is online, can't find any article

 

[Berzin]

BTW who's going out at 5 to score us all a copy of the WSJ?

Is this bombshell article going to be released today?

I have a feeling no one knows for sure. All I've heard is that it the article will be published sometime before the race starts, but no definite day.

 

[FKLance]

I have not followed that closely but I do not quite understand why you would ignore goober. He does not absorb every word choice in the media, which is ok to me before we wait for the real information to come. Of course you can speculate but why argue?

 

[Barrus]

Is this bombshell article going to be released today?

I have a feeling no one knows for sure. All I've heard is that it the article will be published sometime before the race starts, but no definite day.

I thought it was the general consensus that it would come out today, but apparently this is not the case

 

[Nearly]

Can't find it in WSJ either

 

[Berzin]

If one of the riders who talked was Hincapie, imagine the fallout.

He was with Armstrong throughout his seven Tour wins.

He would know everything there is to know, and his integrity seems to be of a higher calibre than that of Landis.

And Zabriskie rode with Armstrong from 2001-2004.

If it's these two, there will be no gaps-all seven Tours will be covered.

 

[Parrot23]

The points about Hincapie are good ones.

* He has to think very carefully and better be talking to a lawyer, as he's had some success with his clothing line, etc. (can lose a lot), and is particularly vulnerable to charges of blatant perjury if others corroborate Landis' story and he lies, playing the ever-loyal lieutenant card again. He could really get in trouble here.

* Looks like the govt. is trying to follow the money trail of who financed this stuff. This is the elephant in the room, but I would think it's very, very difficult to uncover. From the Fuentes imbroglio, we know these programs are very expensive. Where did this money come from? Doubt Lance financed a whole team's doping efforts. Hence, the interest in sponsor money, thus fraud, misrepresentation, etc. Over years, it's millions of dollars.

Start multiplying by several Postal/Disco riders (inner ring, at least) over several years....

 

[python]

can someone deduce what year is vaughters is referring to ?

“Quite frankly, I think the most doping in the sport happened during one of the years where there were no scandals and everybody thought everything was hunky-dory,..

is it really 2009 ?

if so it's laden with huge significance because the uci-armstrong payments immediately come to mind as well as his earlier bards/statements not very pleasing to armstrong.

 

[Publicus]

Maybe I'm a little sleep deprived, but I swear the Cycling News front page article excludes the references to the two implicated riders who have spoken to the Feds. That would be an extraordinary oversight IMO.

Just re-read the article. WTH CN????

 

[Barrus]

Maybe I'm a little sleep deprived, but I swear the Cycling News front page article excludes the references to the two implicated riders who have spoken to the Feds. That would be an extraordinary oversight IMO.

Nope, no reference to that what so ever, really strange, as this was one of the major points of the article

 

[Parrot23]

Maybe I'm a little sleep deprived, but I swear the Cycling News front page article excludes the references to the two implicated riders who have spoken to the Feds. That would be an extraordinary oversight IMO.

The other thing Publicus, does it look like Macur talked to them and knows their identities?

That's a problem, if true. She's a friend of Armstrong's, first name basis, etc. Her article about Landis' appearance at the Tour of California was scurrilous for the NYT (describing him as acting like a big man, important, etc.). Gratuitous insults....

Professionally, she has to take more care for the NYT. She's in somewhat of a conflict of interest (too close to/admiring of the prime player).

Edit: her last Twitter comment is that of a fan. This is problematic. "If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you: RT @lancearmstrong This will be my final Tour de France. It's been a great ride. #cycling".

I wonder about the flirtation element.

 

[hrotha]

Well, let's see:

2009 - Astarloza
2008 - Astana excluded, Schumacher, Ricco, Piepoli...
2007 - Rasmussen thingy, Moreni
2006 - Puerto, Landis
2005 - jolly good time for all involved, but a podium made up of Armstrong, Basso and Ullrich

So if Vaughter's actually thinking of a specific year, it has to be 2009.

 

[Barrus]

Well, let's see:

2009 - Astarloza
2008 - Astana excluded, Schumacher, Ricco, Piepoli...
2007 - Rasmussen thingy, Moreni
2006 - Puerto, Landis
2005 - jolly good time for all involved, but a podium made up of Armstrong, Basso and Ullrich

So if Vaughter's actually thinking of a specific year, it has to be 2009.

or 2005

yadda yadda, too few letters

 

[Bicicleta]

If the Governement is looking at fraud, I would guess its only looking at the US Postal years - not sure they could look at the Disco years for that. But.. they could look at the Disco years for doping offenses.

Does anyone know what kind of a financial accounting the sponsors get from the teams about how their money is spent?

 

[hrotha]

or 2005

yadda yadda, too few letters

I considered that, but it would require a quite liberal interpretation of "everybody thought everything was hunky-dory".

At any rate, I stopped at 2005 but 2004 or most other Lance years would fit the bill.

 

[Barrus]

I considered that, but it would require a quite liberal interpretation of "everybody thought everything was hunky-dory".

At any rate, I stopped at 2005 but 2004 or most other Lance years would fit the bill.

I do believe this is what Vaughters was hinting at

For who is the biggest name in the investigation and the investiagtion is over a certain period specifically, so it would be logical that he meant this period in time, 1999-2005, or at least 2001-2005

 

[hrotha]

I do believe this is what Vaughters was hinting at

For who is the biggest name in the investigation and the investiagtion is over a certain period specifically, so it would be logical that he meant this period in time, 1999-2005, or at least 2001-2005

Makes sense, yeah.

I need to learn to think as a criminal or a detective to truly understand cycling these days.