The Evidence

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 5, 2012
2,938
1
0
Maxiton said:
...to suggest that he has now been blindsided or broadsided by the "big boys" strikes me as wrong and very likely disingenuous coming from someone who speaks with such authority...
Thanks Maxiton for making this call. Lance a bit player? sheesh

thehog said:
...Canary Islands, Ferrari and Crow. She saw it all. It's in the Anderson deposition.
thehog, its incredible how there are so many links to the chain of evidence..."oh what a tangled web we weave"
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Maxiton said:
When LA was a new and somewhat unknown quantity, first as a rider and even later as a post-cancer new winner of the Tour, drawing him as a tool and potential victim of the big boys made sense.

The thing that's always characterized Armstrong, though, is that he insists on being not just a player but the player. He doesn't take orders from anybody, and he's going to be, at the very least, an equal among senior partners in any endeavor, whether sporting or business, one the other partners defer to for final decisions. He insists on hearing every detail and making an informed decision. In this he perhaps has something in common with the late Steve Jobs.

So to suggest that he has now been blindsided or broadsided by the "big boys" strikes me as wrong and very likely disingenuous coming from someone who speaks with such authority. Armstrong could take down all these fat old fools, and you can bet he would if he thought they were screwing him. (Weisel is the only one of the bunch who holds any prospect of having more juice - the money-and-political-power kind - than Armstrong.)

If these supposed big boys don't go down, it'll be because Armstrong doesn't want them to. And if doesn't want them to, it'll be because they've done everything in their power to protect him.
Maxiton, you could be right and I could have misunderstood enormously.

I agree that Lance was given a seat at the table with the big boys. He worked for it and he earned it. And he certainly has enough "dope" on every one of the others at the table to do some damage. But not alone.

He was stupid. He should have gone to the USADA two weeks ago and told the truth, the whole truth, and taken those consequences. Instead he wanted to hold on to his fortune (not really all that much), his power (where reality quickly becomes illusion), and mostly his own image of himself.

Doing so wouldn't take down the other big guys at the table. And I agree that Weisel is untouchable - the biggest crooks always are. He could have taken McQuaid out (maybe), I doubt Verbruggen.

Personally I couldn't believe Lance's decision not to go to arbitration. Well I didn't expect him to go to arbitration, I really expected he would not go to arbitration but I expected, frankly, that we would all be blindsided, again, by Lance. That he must have something we are all looking at but don't see. He simply must. And then that late Thursday night at the witching hour when he writes: "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say . . . ." I thought, poor guy, someone should have at least helped him write a decent statement. And then as the witch is mounting her broomstick with Lance's blood, you hear Herman and Luskin in the background sounding like Lance in the parking lot after getting thrown out of the bar for drinking too much: "Finally, you are on notice that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong, or to falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong’s reasons for not requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of UCI jurisdiction and authority, USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable." I thought, Lance couldn't have believed that letter. He couldn't have believed his lawyers.

No, I don't think Lance ever really called the shots in his life. Not from the moment Carmichael put the first pills in the palm of Lance's hand until the witching hour came (and went). Lance is his own man now. Let's see how he calls the shots. His best friend might very well be Travis Tygart. Personally, I think he holds less in his hands than you give him credit for. But I do think you describe his personality better than I could have.

Lance as a victim? Sure. If he took dope like so many other riders take dope. Yes, he would be a victim. Still responsible for his actions, still a cheat, still sanction-able, still (in some cases, Lance's definitely) a criminal. But also a victim of a team manager, a team doctor, sports organizations, sponsors, and even the fans who actively or passively participate in the "win at all costs" mentality. But now, no longer. I could have sympathy for him as a human being, for someone who wrecked their life. I wouldn't kick him if I saw him lying drunk on the street, and I certainly wouldn't ruin myself by hating him. But I have no sympathy for what he did and for the persons he injured. (Mike Anderson might have been naive and might not have handled his affairs well and perhaps should have had more responsibility for himself . . . But Lance was a jerk, Lance was wrong, the courts were wrong to play Mike as they did, and Mike is better off today as far as possible from Lance. And there are so many other Mikes, bigger and smaller.) Lance was also a victim of cancer, even if it was "self-inflicted" as Sports Illustrated suggested (and I tend to believe). But his lying and deception to other cancer victims and their families is abhorrent. I have not an ounce of sympathy for that. He needs to get out of the cancer world and stay out.

For me Lance Armstrong is a bully, a cheat, and a womanizer. He is a two-bit punk. And, yes, he got thrown under the bus and there is nothing he can do about it now.

I'm not an authority (on anything). You can question my sincerity or motives (as so many here want to do - "What color cowboy hat is she wearing behind her computer?"). It's not about "me" (any "me") and it's not even about Lance. It's about the kind of sport we want to have and the kind of society we want to live in.
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
Here's another thing Lance did not foresee when he quit. The press reaction.

His defenders (Sally Jenkins, Rick Reilly, Buzz Bissinger) stood up for him, as he'd hoped. But these defenders took one shot, and it was a tired one, because those shots relied on the old myths: 500 tests, he's done so much, etc.

Now Jenkins, Reilly, et. al. have to sit by and watch as unfolding events make their recent defenses look increasingly stupid. Liggett is so beyond the pale he doesn't care, and he's old, and possibly daffy, but Jenkins, Reilly and Bissinger still have another 20 years of career ahead of them. Will they continue to stand in the burning building with sport's biggest-ever cheat? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, the evidence keeps rolling in. There is so much to write about, and it's all bad for Lance.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
Apologies if this has already been linked, but here are the science guys, making a comment. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

Part of why this is interesting to me is that he is also "despondent" over the giant silence of the peloton.

And he links to this - an interesting piece on the peloton's reactions:
http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/30184403698/1-a-the-integrated-pattern-of-human-behavior

There are quite a few other good links embedded in the article, too.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Page Mill Masochist said:
Here's another thing Lance did not foresee when he quit. The press reaction.

His defenders (Sally Jenkins, Rick Reilly, Buzz Bissinger) stood up for him, as he'd hoped. But these defenders took one shot, and it was a tired one, because those shots relied on the old myths: 500 tests, he's done so much, etc.

Now Jenkins, Reilly, et. al. have to sit by and watch as unfolding events make their recent defenses look increasingly stupid. Liggett is so beyond the pale he doesn't care, and he's old, and possibly daffy, but Jenkins, Reilly and Bissinger still have another 20 years of career ahead of them. Will they continue to stand in the burning building with sport's biggest-ever cheat? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, the evidence keeps rolling in. There is so much to write about, and it's all bad for Lance.
"First of all, Lance Armstrong is a good man. There’s nothing that I can learn about him short of murder that would alter my opinion on that. Second, I don’t know if he’s telling the truth . . . . " I don't see how Sally Jenkins can recover from this. I suppose she will, but . . . she really tied herself to her "good man."

Liggett loves Lance. You can see it when they are together. He is all starry-eyed and gooey. Infatuations are hard to get over.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
hiero2 said:
Apologies if this has already been linked, but here are the science guys, making a comment. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

Part of why this is interesting to me is that he is also "despondent" over the giant silence of the peloton.

And he links to this - an interesting piece on the peloton's reactions:
http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/30184403698/1-a-the-integrated-pattern-of-human-behavior

There are quite a few other good links embedded in the article, too.
Good stuff. Thanks. But it seems to me that the scientists have been slow on putting 1 + 1 together.

As I said here before: Evidence begets evidence.

It ain't gonna just rain on Lance & Co.'s sunny day. It will be a typhoon.

Do you think they could ever get to Weisel?
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
Sally's dad, Dan Jenkins, was a great sportswriter and comic novelist. He both loved and lampooned his fellow Texans.

In one of Dan's novels about football, the first thing the new team owner does is hire someone who can cheat the payroll cap restriction. Funny stuff. Dan was always good at poking fun at the "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" mentality of his fellow Texans.

Sally lacks her dad's prose talent, humor and honesty.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Page Mill Masochist said:
Here's another thing Lance did not foresee when he quit. The press reaction.

His defenders (Sally Jenkins, Rick Reilly, Buzz Bissinger) stood up for him, as he'd hoped. But these defenders took one shot, and it was a tired one, because those shots relied on the old myths: 500 tests, he's done so much, etc.

Now Jenkins, Reilly, et. al. have to sit by and watch as unfolding events make their recent defenses look increasingly stupid. Liggett is so beyond the pale he doesn't care, and he's old, and possibly daffy, but Jenkins, Reilly and Bissinger still have another 20 years of career ahead of them. Will they continue to stand in the burning building with sport's biggest-ever cheat? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, the evidence keeps rolling in. There is so much to write about, and it's all bad for Lance.
I think the scope of USADA's charges must have been a huge shock to Lance. The federal case was a loser from the get-go and Lance's lawyers surely told Lance that. But Lance filed the case anyway... The only reason had to be delay--in the hope that he could get USA Cycling and/or the UCI to cover his back while the federal case was pending. But delay brought with it a huge cost: The media was now primed for a big upcoming story and Lance had to deploy all of his defensive arguments in one shot, prematurely.

Now, the real onslaught is coming and Lance's PR resources are pretty much spent. I don't think that Lance or his erstwhile handlers are going to be able to impact the narrative much.

It's Potemkin Village time for Lance now, if he wants that grotesque life. Or, Lance can retire to a private life. Or, there's Oprah . . .

Don't see a lot of other choices for the big cheater.
 
LauraLyn said:
Good stuff. Thanks. But it seems to me that the scientists have been slow on putting 1 + 1 together.
I would say they are cautious to the point of fault for some. In general, strict science people are like that though...

Hopefully, this is just the beginning of cleaning up the sport, again.

Lance is no victim. Bike racing is a privilege and he failed. He made choices and now he's got to live with them. The list of victims is long and mostly anonymous because they saw that doping was practically everywhere and just walked away..
 
Page Mill Masochist said:
Here's another thing Lance did not foresee when he quit. The press reaction.

His defenders (Sally Jenkins, Rick Reilly, Buzz Bissinger) stood up for him, as he'd hoped. But these defenders took one shot, and it was a tired one, because those shots relied on the old myths: 500 tests, he's done so much, etc.

Now Jenkins, Reilly, et. al. have to sit by and watch as unfolding events make their recent defenses look increasingly stupid. Liggett is so beyond the pale he doesn't care, and he's old, and possibly daffy, but Jenkins, Reilly and Bissinger still have another 20 years of career ahead of them. Will they continue to stand in the burning building with sport's biggest-ever cheat? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, the evidence keeps rolling in. There is so much to write about, and it's all bad for Lance.
I have to agree. Armstrong came out with super firepower assault on the media and in the comments sections in attempt to hold public opinion hostage. And he’s still going. The journalists you mention probably think he’s winning the war. But the issue is still fresh in everyone’s mind. Some are confused and think he might still be innocent.

But time is a wonderful thing. How long can he keep this up for? 1 month? 2 months – 6 tops? Soon its inventible when the evidence is released by USADA, titles are stripped that he fades into the background. There will be new doping scandals to talk about.

Being defiant and not being distracted is one thing but show a lack of humility in time will be telling.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
So...to come up to scratch with the happenings...we are waiting on USADA to send a 'reasoned decision' to UCI who have three full weeks to respond, yes? So the next four weeks or so will be quiet around here regarding evidence... :)

Tyler's book will have some goodies...will get mine next week I believe. :D
 
thehog said:
But time is a wonderful thing. How long can he keep this up for? 1 month? 2 months – 6 tops? Soon its inventible when the evidence is released by USADA, titles are stripped that he fades into the background. There will be new doping scandals to talk about.

Being defiant and not being distracted is one thing but show a lack of humility in time will be telling.
Friendly anecdote: I was on another more casual bike rider forum where there were a few faithful trying to keep the myth alive and it was easy to pretty much shut the thread down. Now that one can say that USADA has a 2009 positive and then link to the letter and a Tygart interview or two and it's game over for the Faithful. The faithful can't overcome that even as they try to make the myth larger with trash like Ligget's.
 
Microchip said:
So...to come up to scratch with the happenings...we are waiting on USADA to send a 'reasoned decision' to UCI who have three full weeks to respond, yes? So the next four weeks or so will be quiet around here regarding evidence... :)

Tyler's book will have some goodies...will get mine next week I believe. :D
I suspect we'll see some more stuff leak like the French story about 2004/5 positives. Good times ahead!
 
DirtyWorks said:
Friendly anecdote: I was on another more casual bike rider forum where there were a few faithful trying to keep the myth alive and it was easy to pretty much shut the thread down. Now that one can say that USADA has a 2009 positive and then link to the letter and a Tygart interview or two and it's game over for the Faithful. The faithful can't overcome that even as they try to make the myth larger with trash like Ligget's.
With those “types” they’re not even arguing sensibly anymore. They’re arguing their position not the facts. Reasoned and sound logic even without the USADA evidence being released points to one thing = doping.

I find the best way when having this conversation is to turn it around the other way and say “Assuming you’re right. Lance is clean. Then USADA on a fairly miserable budget from congress were prepared to risk their entire organisation and go after the biggest name in cycling history by paying off 10 witnesses including his best friend and concocting an entire story for each witness to deliver in arbitration that doesn’t contradict each other’s statements. They were even able to get them to maintain the lies that convicted dopers Hamilton and Landis have been telling. Of those 10 witnesses not one thought to come forward to talk about the pressure or report the blackmail to the authorities that USADA given them. Along with this they were able to withstand a federal ruling on jurisdiction and gain support from a Congressman. Couple all of this during a period a period of unprecedented doping in the 2000’s he was the one clean rider and but USADA thought best to convict him by setting up this elaborate plan based on a hoax”

Do you think that is likely?
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
LauraLyn said:
Maxiton, you could be right and I could have misunderstood enormously.

I agree that Lance was given a seat at the table with the big boys. He worked for it and he earned it. And he certainly has enough "dope" on every one of the others at the table to do some damage. But not alone.

He was stupid. He should have gone to the USADA two weeks ago and told the truth, the whole truth, and taken those consequences. Instead he wanted to hold on to his fortune (not really all that much), his power (where reality quickly becomes illusion), and mostly his own image of himself.

Doing so wouldn't take down the other big guys at the table. And I agree that Weisel is untouchable - the biggest crooks always are. He could have taken McQuaid out (maybe), I doubt Verbruggen.



Personally I couldn't believe Lance's decision not to go to arbitration. Well I didn't expect him to go to arbitration, I really expected he would not go to arbitration but I expected, frankly, that we would all be blindsided, again, by Lance. That he must have something we are all looking at but don't see. He simply must. And then that late Thursday night at the witching hour when he writes: "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say . . . ." I thought, poor guy, someone should have at least helped him write a decent statement. And then as the witch is mounting her broomstick with Lance's blood, you hear Herman and Luskin in the background sounding like Lance in the parking lot after getting thrown out of the bar for drinking too much: "Finally, you are on notice that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong, or to falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong’s reasons for not requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of UCI jurisdiction and authority, USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable." I thought, Lance couldn't have believed that letter. He couldn't have believed his lawyers.

No, I don't think Lance ever really called the shots in his life. Not from the moment Carmichael put the first pills in the palm of Lance's hand until the witching hour came (and went). Lance is his own man now. Let's see how he calls the shots. His best friend might very well be Travis Tygart. Personally, I think he holds less in his hands than you give him credit for. But I do think you describe his personality better than I could have.

Lance as a victim? Sure. If he took dope like so many other riders take dope. Yes, he would be a victim. Still responsible for his actions, still a cheat, still sanction-able, still (in some cases, Lance's definitely) a criminal. But also a victim of a team manager, a team doctor, sports organizations, sponsors, and even the fans who actively or passively participate in the "win at all costs" mentality. But now, no longer. I could have sympathy for him as a human being, for someone who wrecked their life. I wouldn't kick him if I saw him lying drunk on the street, and I certainly wouldn't ruin myself by hating him. But I have no sympathy for what he did and for the persons he injured. (Mike Anderson might have been naive and might not have handled his affairs well and perhaps should have had more responsibility for himself . . . But Lance was a jerk, Lance was wrong, the courts were wrong to play Mike as they did, and Mike is better off today as far as possible from Lance. And there are so many other Mikes, bigger and smaller.) Lance was also a victim of cancer, even if it was "self-inflicted" as Sports Illustrated suggested (and I tend to believe). But his lying and deception to other cancer victims and their families is abhorrent. I have not an ounce of sympathy for that. He needs to get out of the cancer world and stay out.

For me Lance Armstrong is a bully, a cheat, and a womanizer. He is a two-bit punk. And, yes, he got thrown under the bus and there is nothing he can do about it now.

I'm not an authority (on anything). You can question my sincerity or motives (as so many here want to do - "What color cowboy hat is she wearing behind her computer?"). It's not about "me" (any "me") and it's not even about Lance. It's about the kind of sport we want to have and the kind of society we want to live in.

Isaac Newton:

An object in denial tends to remain in denial.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
MarkvW said:
I think the scope of 1. USADA's charges must have been a huge shock to Lance. The federal case was a loser from the get-go and 2. Lance's lawyers surely told Lance that. But Lance filed the case anyway... The only reason had to be delay--in the hope that he could get USA Cycling and/or the UCI to cover his back while the federal case was pending. But delay brought with it a huge cost: The media was now primed for a big upcoming story and Lance had to deploy all of his defensive arguments in one shot, prematurely.

Now, the real onslaught is coming and Lance's PR resources are pretty much spent. I don't think that Lance or his erstwhile handlers are going to be able to impact the narrative much.

It's Potemkin Village time for Lance now, if he wants that grotesque life. Or, 3. Lance can retire to a private life. Or, there's 4. Oprah . . .

Don't see a lot of other choices for the big cheater.
1. Yes. You have to give Tyler Tygart and USADA credit. The charging letter (and all the thinking that went into it) was brilliant.

2. I don't think Lance knew he would lose in court. He was in his home town. He was with a judge his biking buddy appointed. And he thought he could outsmart everyone. USADA did brilliant lawyering as opposed to Lance's brilliant PR. The lawyering won.

3. He can retire from sports, but he will not be granted much of a life. He has years and years ahead of court cases, I assume.

4. Even Oprah won't want him on her show. I'd be very surprised if she invited him.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
Albert Einstein
:):)
Yes ! And some day ... as people awaken to the true power of imagination(I-magination)... they will realize that not only do they not "need" drugs to excel ... that in fact it was not even the drugs in the first place that made riders appear "better" . It is the BELIEF of themselves taking the drugs that gave them the power.

The greatest power .... requires the least amount of effort. Don't anyone take my word for it ..lol .... investigate it for yourself :) If you so wish to imagine :)
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
ruamruam said:
She will if he confesses all
Would be allowed to be teary-eyed and sniffling while watching it in the comfort of our living room chairs?

I think I might just get my hair done special to watch it at home on TV.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
LauraLyn said:
1. Yes. You have to give Tyler Tygart and USADA credit. The charging letter (and all the thinking that went into it) was brilliant.

2. I don't think Lance knew he would lose in court. He was in his home town. He was with a judge his biking buddy appointed. And he thought he could outsmart everyone. USADA did brilliant lawyering as opposed to Lance's brilliant PR. The lawyering won.

3. He can retire from sports, but he will not be granted much of a life. He has years and years ahead of court cases, I assume.

4. Even Oprah won't want him on her show. I'd be very surprised if she invited him.


You need to catch up: Oprah retired a year ago or about the 4 years after LA should have. The interview show maven getting the most credibility now is Piers Morgan. He thinks Lance doped and anyone that doesn't know that is fairly dim so there aren't many sympathethic venues for tears....
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Oldman said:
[/B]

You need to catch up: Oprah retired a year ago or about the 4 years after LA should have. The interview show maven getting the most credibility now is Piers Morgan. He thinks Lance doped and anyone that doesn't know that is fairly dim so there aren't many sympathetic venues for tears....
Piers Morgan was great in Britain's Got Talent and I swoon at his British accent on CNN.

If fact I had hardly noticed Oprah was gone for the last . . . . how many years is it now? Thank you for the update.

If you got out and about you might find more "sympathetic venues" than you estimate. You could go from the Washington Post in DC to the State Senate in Sacramento.

[There was a bit of an ongoing joke here in the background of The Clinic: "When the fat lady sings" had become "When Lance goes on Oprah."]

But I agree, Oldman, there are a number of dim people out there.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY