The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[Roland Rat]

Interesting tweet yesterday from Lance: "Last hard ride before the TdF. Test on the Col de la Madone. Record time? No. Close to it? Yes. I'm ready.
3:40 AM Jun 28th via UberTwitter"

Sounds like Tom Danielson.

It seems obvious what he's doing.

1. Announce great form
2. State you're retiring after the Tour in any event

=

He won't finish the first week.

 

[D Avoid]

LA training in the mountains. Thanks to scientific progress, this is apparently the way a serious GT contendor looks in 2010.

http://twitpic.com/1z9lhd

The last word in the Reen 18 post needs a C at the begin.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So when the good doctor said:

As an aperitif - which rider has amassed more than $100million from the sport then gives generously to the sporting authorities that do doping controls?

What you come up with is this?
Way to miss the point. Or should I say ignore the point?

So your complaint is that Armstrong made more money than the next guy? Why the heck do you care if he made $100 or $100 million? He hired the right people and got the right endorsements and made a fortune. Good on him. The same goes for all pro athletes who properly manage their own brand.




Any rider could get an investigation started in that instance.

Armstrong is not being investigated because he made a lot of money but rather because serious questions have been raised about how he went about it. Rather a big difference, wouldn't you say?

 

[flicker]

I think really to clean up the sport we need to:
be proactive, encourage women and junior teams
attack organized crime across board all sports. Tose are the primary suppliers and the ones who encourage doping in sports.
I think that in cycling, and I imagine all the major sports systematic doping is encouraged.
I am not excited about Floyds' revelations because I know that that is what has been going on for a long time around cycling.
It is organized crime pure and simple. Hang Bruyneel and Armstrong on the cross if it satisfies you. Systematic doping, it is across the board. Floyd was cheated out of a TdF win, because his competitors were all doped up too. Maybe that is what LeMond was encouraging Floyd to do way back. That whole tour results should have been nullified.
Myself I will support womens cycling, and junior teams. I will ride my bike and be an ambassador to the sport. I will enjoy watching the tour this year and the spectacle, however it unfolds.

 

[*G*K*S*]

Interesting tweet yesterday from Lance: "Last hard ride before the TdF. Test on the Col de la Madone. Record time? No. Close to it? Yes. I'm ready.
3:40 AM Jun 28th via UberTwitter"

Sounds like Tom Danielson.

Lol! From Robbie McEwen today:

5hrs, 190km (2hrs motorpaced) 4 sprints to finish off. highest speed/power record? not quite. close? yes. I'm ready for the Tour too!

Allez Robbie!!

 

[eleven]

So when the good doctor said:

What you come up with is this?
Way to miss the point. Or should I say ignore the point?

I didn't miss the point - I saw no, eh....point in it. He gave money to the UCI. OK then. When a prosecutor establishes that a quid pro quo was involved, we might have something.

Armstrong is not being investigated because he made a lot of money but rather because serious questions have been raised about how he went about it. Rather a big difference, wouldn't you say?

Oh, so attaching the 100M price was just a way of pointing out that he made money? hmm...That doesn't quite fit the tone.

"How he went about it" was getting excellent representation, investing in the right things and winning bike races. Did he dope in those bike races? Prob'ly so.

 

[eleven]

A post straight from the handbook

You, sir, are quite clever and a fine contribution to these boards. Thanks for your meaningful response.

 

[eleven]

What animals do you sacrifice at the altar to Mammon?

More intelligent posting from resident experts.

The ability to make money is your guide to goodness? Did you flunk outta Sunday School to earn your MBA?

who said anything about goodness?

While you're at it, why don't you praise the good men and women managers of Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, General Motors and.....oh... Bernie Madoff, Richard Fuld.

What did the good managers of General Motors do to be on the wrong end of your stick?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't miss the point - I saw no, eh....point in it. He gave money to the UCI. OK then. When a prosecutor establishes that a quid pro quo was involved, we might have something.



Oh, so attaching the 100M price was just a way of pointing out that he made money? hmm...That doesn't quite fit the tone.

"How he went about it" was getting excellent representation, investing in the right things and winning bike races. Did he dope in those bike races? Probably so.

Let me help you...

The point was a question - which is why I said "which"... the amounts amassed and the bit about the sporting authorities were just clues to assist you.

As an aperitif - which rider has amassed more than $100million from the sport then gives generously to the sporting authorities that do doping controls?

When you say "investing in the right way".... you mean like giving 'financial contributions' to the UCI?

 

[eleven]

When you say "investing in the right way".... you mean like giving 'financial contributions' to the UCI?

well, that's not technically an investment. It's a contribution. I was thinking more along the lines of investments in Trek, C3 Presents, real estate etc....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

well, that's not technically an investment. It's a contribution. I was thinking more along the lines of investments in Trek, C3 Presents, real estate etc....

How much money would he have made if he had been banned from competition - just for fun lets say he didn't have a TUE in 1999 as an example, or he tested positive in 2001 - in your opinion do you think that might have harmed his earning potential?

In that light a "financial contribution" could be viewed as a shrewd investment.

 

[Oldman]

How much money would he have made if he had been banned from competition - just for fun lets say he didn't have a TUE in 1999 as an example, or he tested positive in 2001 - in your opinion do you think that might have harmed his earning potential?

In that light a "financial contribution" could be viewed as a shrewd investment.

..as well as appearance at events on Irish soil, for some odd reason.

 

[eleven]

How much money would he have made if he had been banned from competition - just for fun lets say he didn't have a TUE in 1999 as an example, or he tested positive in 2001 - in your opinion do you think that might have harmed his earning potential?

he would have made considerably less, obviously. The same is true for every athlete (and every employee) on the planet. We could play a game of "How much money would Indurain have made if he had been convicted of doping in 1992?", "how low would Roger Clemen's net worth be if he really WAS at the twilight of his career in 1996, but for the juice?", "How much less would Wiggins be worth if he was caught doping before the 2009 tour?" But that little game doesn't serve any purpose. The objective reality is that Armstrong was not convicted of doping in 2001.

In that light a "financial contribution" could be viewed as a shrewd investment.

Again, if a quid pro quo is established then there will be a point to this line of thought.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

So your complaint is that Armstrong made more money than the next guy? Why the heck do you care if he made $100 or $100 million? He hired the right people and got the right endorsements and made a fortune. Good on him. The same goes for all pro athletes who properly manage their own brand.

What animals do you sacrifice at the altar to Mammon?

The ability to make money is your guide to goodness? Did you flunk outta Sunday School to earn your MBA?

While you're at it, why don't you praise the good men and women managers of Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, General Motors and.....oh... Bernie Madoff, Richard Fuld.

Yeah. Good. On. Them. Sheesh.

Let's not conflate justified accumulation of wealth with fraudulent accumulation of wealth.

Now, the case can be made, and apparently will be made, that LA's accumulation of wealth is fraudulent due to allegedly false claims of clean performances. But that's for another subforum.

That aside, as far as I can tell LA's accumulation of wealth was otherwise justified and not fraudulent, especially considering how prevalent PED use is in the sport among his rivals, while Madoff's accumulation clearly and certainly was fraudulent.

Many people seem to assume that any significant accumulation of wealth is inherently fraudulent. It's not.

 

[kurtinsc]

Let's not conflate justified accumulation of wealth with fraudulent accumulation of wealth.

Now, the case can be made, and apparently will be made, that LA's accumulation of wealth is fraudulent due to allegedly false claims of clean performances. But that's for another subforum.

That aside, as far as I can tell LA's accumulation of wealth was otherwise justified and not fraudulent, especially considering how prevalent PED use is in the sport among his rivals, while Madoff's accumulation clearly and certainly was fraudulent.

Many people seem to assume that any significant accumulation of wealth is inherently fraudulent. It's not.

I'm a little confused.

Are we saying here that any athelete that made money while doping is guilty of fraud?

That seems... like a bit of a stretch.

 

[flicker]

Let's not conflate justified accumulation of wealth with fraudulent accumulation of wealth.

Now, the case can be made, and apparently will be made, that LA's accumulation of wealth is fraudulent due to allegedly false claims of clean performances. But that's for another subforum.

That aside, as far as I can tell LA's accumulation of wealth was otherwise justified and not fraudulent, especially considering how prevalent PED use is in the sport among his rivals, while Madoff's accumulation clearly and certainly was fraudulent.

Many people seem to assume that any significant accumulation of wealth is inherently fraudulent. It's not.

Pretty much what I understand about the forum posters is: They resent winners, they resent people who are in the limelight who are financially successful, they resent divorcees/date or marry women who look like their Moms, resent overweight people, resent people whom they perceive as philanderers or people who lie or react in a way not becoming to their perception of how an athlete/Dad acts. Plus the scouts and kids they hate also. interesting. Thank God they have this place to vent. Oh yeah the demon Chris Carmicheal oh he is a bad one also.

 

[flicker]

Oh yeah Lance is old and fat. Wow! That is worth talking about. Hmmp

 

[Dr. Maserati]

he would have made considerably less, obviously. The same is true for every athlete (and every employee) on the planet. We could play a game of "How much money would Indurain have made if he had been convicted of doping in 1992?", "how low would Roger Clemen's net worth be if he really WAS at the twilight of his career in 1996, but for the juice?", "How much less would Wiggins be worth if he was caught doping before the 2009 tour?" But that little game doesn't serve any purpose. The objective reality is that Armstrong was not convicted of doping in 2001.
.....
Again, if a quid pro quo is established then there will be a point to this line of thought.

Roger Clemens - wow and I though I knew all Pro cyclists....

So, how much did Indurain pay, I mean contribute to the UCI?
Was it around the time of a TUE or an alleged positive test result? No need for your evidence to have met Federal Court standard - call me boring I know, just an ex teammate or an news story will do me.

 

[issoisso]

Pretty much what I understand about the forum posters is: They resent winners, they resent people who are in the limelight who are financially successful, they resent divorcees/date or marry women who look like their Moms, resent overweight people, resent people whom they perceive as philanderers or people who lie or react in a way not becoming to their perception of how an athlete/Dad acts. Plus the scouts and kids they hate also. interesting. Thank God they have this place to vent. Oh yeah the demon Chris Carmicheal oh he is a bad one also.

And people who breathe. You forgot people who breathe.

 

[Publicus]

I'm a little confused.

Are we saying here that any athelete that made money while doping is guilty of fraud?

That seems... like a bit of a stretch.

Not really. Fraud is "an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual."

It is irrelevant if others are engaging in fraudulent activities (that is not a defense to the crime/civil action). Taking PEDs to enhancing one chance of winning a major stage race (worth 450MM Euros) and millions of dollars in endorsements would constitute fraud (if proven). Obtaining endorsement dollars from another entity by knowingly deceiving the other party about use PEDs and its impact on your prior (and projected future) success . . . is fraud (if proven).

It should be noted that fraud is VERY difficult to prove. But it is incorrect to suggest that fraud is a bit of a stretch under the circumstances as presently known.

 

[Nick777]

I'm a little confused.

Are we saying here that any athelete that made money while doping is guilty of fraud?

That seems... like a bit of a stretch.

Not really. Sporting fraud comes into play.

 

[Nostradamus]

How many professional cyclists have been convicted of fraud?

 

[Nearly]

How many professional cyclists have been convicted of fraud?

The obvious answer is none* in respect of their racing that is (I think this has been tried on only in Germany (Ullrich and or two others) and even there deals have been done falling short of convictions).

There is good reason for this.

It is not generally a legal fraud against competitors or the world at large to have doped and won. It is a breach of sporting rules to be found to have enhanced performance in particular ways as evidenced in prescibed ways (positive tests et al) with breaches sanctionable by suspensions/fines/loss of prizemoney in accordance with those rules but that is all*.

*[Edit: specific "sporting fraud statutes such as in Italy aside].

"Moral" fraud is a different thing. [There are social not legal consequences for this with its degree being a function of generally accepted morality in the relevant society such as the cycling community.]

Similarly, fraud may be you misrepresenting to others that you are/were "clean", they relaying on that representation to paying you money/benefits which you would not otherwise have got if you were clean. Not your average race day equation.

Not surprising that there have been few if any convictions. But in the land of 'wire frauds' and 'ricos' anything is (more) possible.

 

[Ripper]

Holy McCraptastic! This thread is seriously wacked. The loons always seem to come out at this time of the year, and LA has made it worse

 

[auscyclefan94]

Holy McCraptastic! This thread is seriously wacked. The loons always seem to come out at this time of the year, and LA has made it worse

Lance has let out his loyal servants to corrupt the world with his and their lies!

Why is Conti speaking so highly of Lance and Johan now? It is sickening!