• 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!

The media's contribution to the Armstrong Lie

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Dallas_ said:
No, you are wrong eleven. It passed legal muster at SI as stated previously

Ha! Yes, because it was "Stated previously" it is fact. Exactly what "legal muster" do you think it "passed"? Do you think SI editorial staff are paid attorneys?

Plus SI check all sources. There are no grey areas here - that is all facts in the article.
No, it's not fact. That's the point. SI is sometimes wrong. On most of the Armstrong story, they are probably right. On the Hemassist portion, they are wrong. Time will bear that out.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
...possession is a doping violation, and a violation of their USPS contract.

access is not possession.



...who in turn review the legal implications, and then forward over for fact checking and legal review, so, yes, the story HAD to go through a legal review. Only items that could be fact-checked, substantiated and prevent a lawsuit made it in the (any) credible article.

I'm not sure which newspaper you are confusing with SI. SI is under no obligation, nor (according to "sources") did they take heed of any warning to, run any story through a legal process.


Oh, how wrong you are. Filing an lawsuit for injunctive relief would most certainly been their route to getting the article frozen in its tracks. The fact that they did no such thing is enough indication that their claim would have failed and they'd be looking even more foolish. Please recall that Lance pulled the same maneuver to prevent the Walsh/Ballister book from being printed in English. Only the French version got printed.

Filing for injunctive relief doesn't get you injunctive relief. It must be granted. Perhaps you should read what I write.

If you'd like to go round and round, fine. Maybe a bit of fact checking of your own would help you overcome these ill-informed positions you seem to be taking?

Look, this isn't my first post on this board. I realize fully that any post that even hints at the slightest notion that the poster might not believe hook-line-sinker in every anti-Armstrong conspiracy will be dismissed and face ad hominem attacks. The hilarious part is that I'm just as certain as everyone else that he's guilty of certain charges - I just don't buy into the one that are false just to stroke egos of forum participants and sycophants.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
jimmypop said:
But, since you're actually _______, you're not here to debate, only to troll.
You people are hilarious. The least bit of dissent in the tinfoil brigade and you go about accusing people of being trolls etc... You must be a pleasure at cocktail parties.

if you look at my history, you'll see that I've posted here infrequently for quite some time.
 
eleven said:
Look, this isn't my first post on this board. I realize fully that any post that even hints at the slightest notion that the poster might not believe hook-line-sinker in every anti-Armstrong conspiracy will be dismissed and face ad hominem attacks. The hilarious part is that I'm just as certain as everyone else that he's guilty of certain charges - I just don't buy into the one that are false just to stroke egos of forum participants and sycophants.

No, the hilarious part is that if I had a buck for every person who "believes that Lance did something wrong/is not a Lance fan" yet still spends eff all number of hours defending him here, I would give you my bike shop and retire.
 
sniper said:
+1 for the claritiy and information density of this post.
Hadn't heard before about the Walsh/Ballister English version being prohibited due to Lance taking legal action. Interesting.

The book LA Confidential was only published in French - and LA DID indeed sue for defamation, though it was dropped. He also did lodge injuctions to prevent it being published in English.

Walsh however, later published Lance to Landis in English ... which contains all of the information in LA Confidential and a bit more (the 99 EPO stuff and some other).

Lance to Landis is still available for purchase, and LA has not sued for defamation over that book.

As for the Hemassist - I do believe there is a case to answer for Lance. That doesn't mean he definitely did .... but there must be SOMETHING in it or SI wouldn't have published it and risked being sued.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Susan Westemeyer said:
And you know this how? Source?

Susan

In a thread (and a forum) chock full of a wide range of unsubstantiated innuendo and claims, why would my above quote be the one requiring a "source"? If there's a source, it's obviously not a public one. No different than CN running "people aware of the investigation" etc...claims.

The facts will surely come to light in due time.
 
eleven said:
In a thread (and a forum) chock full of a wide range of unsubstantiated innuendo and claims, why would my above quote be the one requiring a "source"? If there's a source, it's obviously not a public one. No different than CN running "people aware of the investigation" etc...claims.

The facts will surely come to light in due time.

Because you stated it as an absolute fact, no "sources say" or whatever.

And because it is SOP for most publications to run such stories by Legal before publishing. Since I do not work for SI, I don't know what was done in this instance, but the publication's reputation is such that it is not likely they would skip this step, especially on such a controversial topic.

Susan
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
"Sources" have told me the above information. I'll edit the post appropriately. I apologize for any confusion.

Sounds like your "Sources" are the same "Lawyers familiar with the case" that the AP quoted.

I first heard about Baxter almost 10 years ago from an Armstrong teammate.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
That's convenient. In 2011.

I have written about here, and other forums for years. The story has been know for years. Wonderboy was a bit too vocal about getting a hold of the killer new stuff.

It is not surprising that what he tells people today is much different then what he said 13 years ago when he wasn't the subject of a Federal investigation.
 
Still Waiting

eleven said:
that's because the hemassist story can not be confirmed..because it's simply not true.

Still waiting for your credible source on this claim.

You are posting substantial claims of fact then, more or less, moving onto another probably false claim. When anyone attempts to get some clarification on a claim that wasn't obviously wrong, there is none.

C'mon now, you have made many bold statements in this thread. It's time to back ONE of them up with a credible source. Or, maybe there is no credible source? Maybe there's no truth in it at all? Which is behavior seen frequently in this forum. Leaving soon?
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
eleven said:
"Sources" have told me the above information. I'll edit the post appropriately. I apologize for any confusion.

So, why are posters like this allowed to continue to stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot?

I'm inclined to put more weight behind the SI story than, say, a random Internet fanboy who's asserting that the target of a federal investigation is indeed innocent of one of the main charges likely to be brought against said target.

It must really kill people like you that your mancrush is in legal trouble. I actually don't understand this position: since you're willing to explain away any data, you'll also be able to rationalize any potential conviction in the future just as easily.

It's tough, I know, since Armstrong cured your cancer or something. It's why he bed so many women: one touch of that remaining testicle and you're immortal. Dude can't shower anywhere.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I have written about here, and other forums for years. The story has been know for years. Wonderboy was a bit too vocal about getting a hold of the killer new stuff.

It is not surprising that what he tells people today is much different then what he said 13 years ago when he wasn't the subject of a Federal investigation.

This was a very vague rumor but the thinking in Europe among those who rumbled the rumor (employees and other racers on competing teams) was that he had an inside source due to all the cancer work, and his connections within the MD community.

Please remind yourselves that within every walk of life, and every industry there is a subversive element and exploitable, weak individuals. Guys like Armstrong and his crew can sniff out those they can take advantage of the weaknesses, like gangsters, and work their trust and influence over them. It inly takes a couple of folks to "hook him up" and erase the tracks. Call it "black market" or "shrinkage" of product, but it is very real and very serious as it relates to medicines like narcotics and PED's. Funny enough but Viagra has massive "black market" issues.

That is now comes out it was Baxter, probably sourced out of Switzerland, and kept in France at LA's house in Nice, simply clarifies the previous rumor.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Still waiting for your credible source on this claim.
it is quite funny that people suddenly want one to divulge "credible sources" after all of the myriad claims, charges etc...levied here every day that go without source.

Heck, even the article being discussed relies on "unnamed sources".

So, I have an un-named source. Thanks.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
jimmypop said:
So, why are posters like this allowed to continue to stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot?

I'm inclined to put more weight behind the SI story than, say, a random Internet fanboy who's asserting that the target of a federal investigation is indeed innocent of one of the main charges likely to be brought against said target.

It must really kill people like you that your mancrush is in legal trouble. I actually don't understand this position: since you're willing to explain away any data, you'll also be able to rationalize any potential conviction in the future just as easily.

It's tough, I know, since Armstrong cured your cancer or something. It's why he bed so many women: one touch of that remaining testicle and you're immortal. Dude can't shower anywhere.

^This is a new level of sand in which ones head must be buried. Let me try this one more time: I agree with most posters here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on several fronts, and an "un-named source" agrees. No one seems to bother with that. According to an "un-named source," he is in no jeopardy related to the charge of "access to" Hemassist because that portion of the story is incorrect.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
eleven said:
^This is a new level of sand in which ones head must be buried. Let me try this one more time: I agree with most posters here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on several fronts, and an "un-named source" agrees. No one seems to bother with that. According to an "un-named source," he is in no jeopardy related to the charge of "access to" Hemassist because that portion of the story is incorrect.

the problem is the only unnamed source that could say this with certainty is LA, or someone needed to be wth him 24/7 for several years.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
eleven said:
^This is a new level of sand in which ones head must be buried. Let me try this one more time: I agree with most posters here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on several fronts, and an "un-named source" agrees. No one seems to bother with that. According to an "un-named source," he is in no jeopardy related to the charge of "access to" Hemassist because that portion of the story is incorrect.

I'm willing to wager this:

We all have far less to gain by being wrong (using your definition of wrong) than you have to gain by convincing us that you're correct.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
eleven said:
it is quite funny that people suddenly want one to divulge "credible sources" after all of the myriad claims, charges etc...levied here every day that go without source.

Heck, even the article being discussed relies on "unnamed sources".

So, I have an un-named source. Thanks.

So that I can clearly understand, please tell me if I have this right:

Your "source" is claiming that the SI article, for which is a USA publication and governed by the laws of New York state, forewent any legal review, vetting, or source verification and fact checking, and published materials that were patently false and damaging to the reputation of Lance Armstrong?

And further, that Lance Armstrong and his counsel has chosen, to this day, to permit the information to stand, ignoring the legal recourse he could have taken to prevent the publication of such materials?

And on top of that, it is your claim that the published assertion that Lance (or his associates) obtained an experimental medicine produced by Baxter is false, and that SI's "source" who states that the US Federal agents have documentation of this are in fact incorrect?

Please, confirm or clarify if I have misinterpreted.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
Why do I get the feeling that "someone" was recently helicoptered-in with a fresh rucksack the other day.

So who kept the account active while you were busy on other billable work? The interns?
 

TRENDING THREADS