USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[Cavalier]

i prefered jonathan vaughter's article. you should read it. dopers are just people that had to make hard choices about whether they wanted to be competitive. their behavior should not be endorsed but they shouldn't be hated and demonized either.

I hope everyone in the public reads his article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?pagewanted=all

I read it, and you'll find most people here did. But you're in Category #2 of what I wrote. Armstrong is a special case. Nobody Vaughters described tried to ruin the lives of other people. My goal was solely to educate people on why Armstrong isn't what he claims to be.

 

[Benotti69]

this is an absurd picture. i know all about armstrong. he is a highly strung character that did not react in the most professional of ways to people who tried to destroy his career by revealing information about him. perhaps knowing he has character defaults, he also has done a lot of good for people to offset this - more than everybody here combined. he also has a lot of friends in the sport, as you can see from the reactions from many people, so clearly he could be a nice guy as well. he is a very intelligent guy.

at what point do you end this cartoon character villian portrayal of armstrong? you really think, on top of the other punishment he has now received, he should go to jail for calling someone fat or trying to stop them writing doping articles about him? i think its time for you guys to move on, or you risk looking like a much bigger bully than the person you hate.

So you're from LieStrong no surprise there.

Name the good he has done for people. Lance made a few people rich on his success as well as making himself rich. The rest is BS.

Not Liestrong. That place raised $500million for their own ends, not for cancer. They sell cancer awareness. They dont fund cancer research. They sit around all day scouring the internet for stuff to put on their website and troll forums bad mouthing liestrong and Armstrong.

You dont know what the 10,000 members on here have done as they dont publicise it to the nth degree with a huge publicity team.

 

[Benotti69]

You can call it whatever you want but from everything I have looked at in the mainstream, the American people are going to sweep this under the rug and support Lance (usually about 7/3 in favor reading the comments sections of the major news websites).

Comment sections are no way to judge public opinion as there is software out there to bombard comment sections.

 

[ÅSBJÖRN BENKT]

I think you are confusing common interests with friendship. Contador is certainly not on friendly terms with Armstrong yet he has rushed to Armstrong's defense. It's not because he likes or even respects the guy. He's protecting the system that protects him.

Then you have all the guys on the Armstrong gravy train and have some business connection to Armstrong. They are the best friends money could buy.

Eliminate all those with a vested interest and you won't be left with many, if any.

from what i have seen contador has not said anything in support of armstrong. this could be because armstrong never said anything publically to defend him when he was going through his problems. but armstrong can be a very charismatic and friendly guy - there are a lot of people who have friendships with him in the sport.

he also has many defenders who have no real need to support him but have too much knowledge of the sport to write him off. yes it wasn't as level a playing field as if they were all clean, but knowing that doping programs was an integral part of GC contention during the armstrong era can't help but lead many informed observers to the conclusion that armstrong deserved much of the success he had. no articles detailing his doping history are going to change that.

 

[ÅSBJÖRN BENKT]

So you're from LieStrong no surprise there.

Name the good he has done for people. Lance made a few people rich on his success as well as making himself rich. The rest is BS.

Not Liestrong. That place raised $500million for their own ends, not for cancer. They sell cancer awareness. They dont fund cancer research. They sit around all day scouring the internet for stuff to put on their website and troll forums bad mouthing liestrong and Armstrong.

You dont know what the 10,000 members on here have done as they dont publicise it to the nth degree with a huge publicity team.

seriously, i think you can end the smearing of his charity now. it has taken a big hit from this anyway.

someone can't spend so much time directly helping other people and not be sincere about it. you need to deal with the reality that people have complex personalities. he can view normal people differently to rivals in the sport or people whose actions are trying to ruin his reputation. armstong is a human being.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Yes, 7/3 is about right

You can call it whatever you want but from everything I have looked at in the mainstream, the American people are going to sweep this under the rug and support Lance (usually about 7/3 in favor reading the comments sections of the major news websites).

Which is exactly where I was with the UK media. I was about to write that we did not have a "dog in the race" but the BBC unwittingly introduced one and then recoiled when it barked. Yesterday, the BBC made it their No 2 national news story for most of the day. The "experts" were so patently not but highly biased and their independent "pro" and "anti" were toothless air-heads. If I was uniformed but keen to learn what all this fuss was about, by the nature of the coverage I could only come to one point of view - Lance is an innocent, hounded by lunatics. Even when, so obviously, a Brit - Graham Obree can state that his life was shattered by corruption from the top down, it still cuts no ice. Then when the Head of WADA comes on and calls it, immediately they allow an idiot to rubbish his testimony, you get that Lance is so much an establishment figure, the inertia is massive and well beyond the capability of the journalism in place in much of the media.

 

[lactictac]

Benkt, Defenders who have no need to defend La? Other than being associated with the guilty. At a minimum. You think all La apologists are benevolent and all detractors are demented cartoonists. You, sir, your posts, scream AGENDA. You garner little faith as such. As sdaid, the door is opne and we all walk through - if we want. Don't fear the facts.

 

[COMO CYCO]

You can call it whatever you want but from everything I have looked at in the mainstream, the American people are going to sweep this under the rug and support Lance (usually about 7/3 in favor reading the comments sections of the major news websites).

Whereas I do agree that comments on websites are not scientifically accurate, consider this Facebook poll on the Cyclingnews homepage. Question: Do you think Lance Armstrong should be stripped of his seven Tour de France wins?

No: 2,022
Yes: 429

IS there selection bias? Possibly - but consider that the people visiting that page are likely informed cycling enthusiasts at the very least - more knowledgeable than the average non-cycling member of the public.

I think we are in the minority....big time.

 

[ManInFull]

The American people are responding, with their wallets

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...ees-78k-donations-25-times-greater-normal-day

I'm not really shocked by this. There are many people out there who have an emotional attachment to Lance and refuse to logically look at what USADA announced and did yesterday.

Unless Lance gets in front of a camera and admits that he doped, the "true believers" will continue to defend him. And we all know that we have a better chance of winning the lottery than witnessing Lance admit that he is a fraud.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Whereas I do agree that comments on websites are not scientifically accurate, consider this Facebook poll on the Cyclingnews homepage. Question: Do you think Lance Armstrong should be stripped of his seven Tour de France wins?

No: 2,022
Yes: 429

IS there selection bias? Possibly - but consider that the people visiting that page are likely informed cycling enthusiasts at the very least - more knowledgeable than the average non-cycling member of the public.

I think we are in the minority....big time.

At the end of the day the USADA won the battle but they blew off their arms doing it. I have a feeling Lance is going to win the war. I think you are going to start to see a massive political push by politicians to defund the USADA in favor of sport doping controls connected to the US Courts, which is probably not a bad option. The USADA has a lot of egg on their face after this and are extremely unpopular among American sports fans after the Bonds and Clemens trials.

By the way thought this was really interesting that I saw on a neutral sports forum. Barry Bonds 5 years later

http://deadspin.com/5929432/barry-bonds-is-skinny-again

 

[rhubroma]

I spent the better part of tonight writing this up. If you get the chance, have a read through it - I know I missed some stuff, so if you can think of something I omitted, let me know, and I'll edit it in if it's relevant. But if you agree with it, every chance you get, send a Lance worshipper to read it. Slowly but surely, we can stop falsification. Retweet it, facebook it, post it on forums. 60% of people believing in Lance polls is far too high, and it's only through misinformation that they do so.

It's not about the bike. It is about the behaviour and the drugs. A truthful look at Armstrong's history: http://tmblr.co/ZDdCpuS6QClQ

Fabulous work.

 

[COMO CYCO]

Which is exactly where I was with the UK media. I was about to write that we did not have a "dog in the race" but the BBC unwittingly introduced one and then recoiled when it barked. .

And last evening in the US, on CNN, both on Piers Morgan and AC360, despite the presence of guest experts who both concurred that the evidence points most definitely to LA being guilty, everyone almost acted apologetic....because of "cancer". No matter that the issues have nothing to do with one another in reality.

The 'C' shield has done exactly what it was intended to do. It has worked beautifully for him. He could teach politicians a thing or two about wagging the dog.

 

[MarkvW]

Which is exactly where I was with the UK media. I was about to write that we did not have a "dog in the race" but the BBC unwittingly introduced one and then recoiled when it barked. Yesterday, the BBC made it their No 2 national news story for most of the day. The "experts" were so patently not but highly biased and their independent "pro" and "anti" were toothless air-heads. If I was uniformed but keen to learn what all this fuss was about, by the nature of the coverage I could only come to one point of view - Lance is an innocent, hounded by lunatics. Even when, so obviously, a Brit - Graham Obree can state that his life was shattered by corruption from the top down, it still cuts no ice. Then when the Head of WADA comes on and calls it, immediately they allow an idiot to rubbish his testimony, you get that Lance is so much an establishment figure, the inertia is massive and well beyond the capability of the journalism in place in much of the media.

The media can be massaged for awhile, but eventually they are going to get bored of the "unconstitutional" and "unfair" mantra and they are going to go hunting for new stories to feed the hungry populace.

And the Western media is generally very lazy. They absolutely will not hunt for a new story.

So when the details of the doping emerge, those details will become the focus of the story. All the media questions will then spawn from that narrative, rather than the (newly stale) Lance narrative.

And I doubt that Lance has any kind of narrative that will either reply to or overwhelm the doping evidence.

 

[Freddythefrog]

I think we are in the minority....big time.

We are in the minority in the community of cyclists. In the wider World we are just "jealous grumps".

There are some stupid people out there. It is dead easy to see why rigged photos of the Loch Ness Monster - death-bed confession - Christian Spurling and Fairies, at the bottom of the garden were still believed by many even to recent years.

 

[pmcg76]

from what i have seen contador has not said anything in support of armstrong. this could be because armstrong never said anything publically to defend him when he was going through his problems. but armstrong can be a very charismatic and friendly guy - there are a lot of people who have friendships with him in the sport.

he also has many defenders who have no real need to support him but have too much knowledge of the sport to write him off. yes it wasn't as level a playing field as if they were all clean, but knowing that doping programs was an integral part of GC contention during the armstrong era can't help but lead many informed observers to the conclusion that armstrong deserved much of the success he had. no articles detailing his doping history are going to change that.

This is a ridiculous argument. Before Armstong got cancer he was never a Tour contender. When he came back in 98, he recived a huge amount of goodwill in the cycling world because of what he had been through and what he achieved in 98 without winning big. There was no pressure or expectations on him to become a Tour champion or even contender from anyone and he was getting a decent salary from Postal. He had lived outside the bubble of pro cycling, he had experienced the jolt that usually makes people see the bigger picture which most pro riders dont experience until they retire.

He was suppossedly representing the cancer community. Despite what people claim, he had options. More options than the average pro faced with the doping conundrum. Instead of taking the moral highground of working for his foundation and keeping his nose clean, he chose the least moralistic choice of doping to the max in an effort to win the Tour, deciding to lie to those he claimed to represent and actually embracing the idea of using cancer to cover his tracks.

Armstrong just as easily could have decided to go back to the US or even race in Europe(cleanly) whilst working for his foundation, I am sure he would have dominated in the US like Horner did without drugs and nobody would have faulted him if he didnt, he was already a success. But then that wouldnt have given him the big ego or financial boost of being a big star. Proving that it was never about "them" but purely about the pursuit of adulation and money.

When you choose to become a representative of something like a cancer foundation, you are setting yourself up to be something more than a mere cyclist. Fit and proper is the term used for occupying such positions. Armstrong was far from that but he exploited it regardless. A truly despicable character and for that alone he deserves every punishment he gets.

 

[rhubroma]

Which is exactly where I was with the UK media. I was about to write that we did not have a "dog in the race" but the BBC unwittingly introduced one and then recoiled when it barked. Yesterday, the BBC made it their No 2 national news story for most of the day. The "experts" were so patently not but highly biased and their independent "pro" and "anti" were toothless air-heads. If I was uniformed but keen to learn what all this fuss was about, by the nature of the coverage I could only come to one point of view - Lance is an innocent, hounded by lunatics. Even when, so obviously, a Brit - Graham Obree can state that his life was shattered by corruption from the top down, it still cuts no ice. Then when the Head of WADA comes on and calls it, immediately they allow an idiot to rubbish his testimony, you get that Lance is so much an establishment figure, the inertia is massive and well beyond the capability of the journalism in place in much of the media.

That's because people in the Anglo-American world see sport as their only salvation.

While they lack that dose of acuteness and cynicism found in the Latin countries, which transforms thier isipid candor and ingenuousness into an appaling type of reactionary hero worship. Above all they find it extremely difficult to believe someone would be capable of lying so easily and so shamelessly as for all these years. They are far too trusting.

 

[Paco_P]

By the way thought this was really interesting that I saw on a neutral sports forum. Barry Bonds 5 years later

http://deadspin.com/5929432/barry-bonds-is-skinny-again

That same "neutral sports forum" had (a few days before the news about Lance came out) the following from an anonymous interview with a sports PR guy who apparently reps a bunch of big name athletes:

bumblebeetunas
Who's the biggest *** you have ever encountered, and why.

AnonymousPRGuy @bumblebeetunas
a 19 year-old LeBron James, but that's almost an unfair assessment of him. And Lance Armstrong.

http://deadspin.com/5936638/ask-an-...-shady-work-of-being-a-pro-athletes-publicist

 

[Benotti69]

At the end of the day the USADA won the battle but they blew off their arms doing it. I have a feeling Lance is going to win the war. I think you are going to start to see a massive political push by politicians to defund the USADA in favor of sport doping controls connected to the US Courts, which is probably not a bad option. The USADA has a lot of egg on their face after this and are extremely unpopular among American sports fans after the Bonds and Clemens trials.

Nah. USADA have started the snowball that may cause an avalanche. That depends if those corrupt in sport go out of their way to stop USADA from stripping Armstrong and banning others for lifetimes.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

That same "neutral sports forum" had (a few days before the news about Lance came out) the following from an anonymous interview with a sports PR guy who apparently reps a bunch of big name athletes:

http://deadspin.com/5936638/ask-an-...-shady-work-of-being-a-pro-athletes-publicist

It was not from that forum but someone posted that link

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Nah. USADA have started the snowball that may cause an avalanche. That depends if those corrupt in sport go out of their way to stop USADA from stripping Armstrong and banning others for lifetimes.

I have a feeling that the UCI and ASO are not going to let that happen. Also you know some congressman is going to make a crusade to "cut fat and hold people responsible for the use of their taxpayer money." The odds are in their favor.

 

[MarkvW]

That's because people in the Anglo-American world see sport as their only salvation.

While they lack that dose of acuteness and cynicism found in the Latin countries, which transforms thier isipid candor and ingenuousness into an appaling type of reactionary hero worship. Above all they find it extremely difficult to believe someone would be capable of lying so easily and so shamelessly as for all these years. They are far too trusting.

Yeah, my mom sees sport as her only salvation. . . .
Get real.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

At the end of the day the USADA won the battle but they blew off their arms doing it. I have a feeling Lance is going to win the war. I think you are going to start to see a massive political push by politicians to defund the USADA in favor of sport doping controls connected to the US Courts, which is probably not a bad option. The USADA has a lot of egg on their face after this and are extremely unpopular among American sports fans after the Bonds and Clemens trials.

By the way thought this was really interesting that I saw on a neutral sports forum. Barry Bonds 5 years later

http://deadspin.com/5929432/barry-bonds-is-skinny-again

Click your heels together and say three times "There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home."

The only people with egg on their face are the deluded hero worshipers who believed in the biggest fraud in the history of sports. Lance will become more and more the pariah he deserves to be. The USADA will continue to provide a needed service ridding the sport of scum like Armstrong.

As for Bonds, the difference between he and Wonderboy is that there is just an asterisk by Bond's records. Armstrong's have been wiped from the face of the earth. Sad.

 

[BillytheKid]

If I understand the what this article is implying, and with the UCI is asking for evidence be made available to all parties, Armstrong might have the basis for a cival case against the USADA if they did not follow their own protocal in reaching their decision. He may never get his titles back, but a cival case might be very easy an easy win if USADA has gone around it's own rules.

Thus, he may have the last blow in the court of public opinion. Cival cases require a lower burdern of proof and tend to favor the plaintiff (Armstrong) and would give him, in theory, more control over the exposing the faults, if any, of the USADA decisison.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/08/24/texas-fold-em/

 

[rhubroma]

Yeah, my mom sees sport as her only salvation. . . .
Get real.

If you took that literally then you need a reality check...

Why is so difficult for some people to get irony and satire?

 

[COMO CYCO]

Nah. USADA have started the snowball that may cause an avalanche. That depends if those corrupt in sport go out of their way to stop USADA from stripping Armstrong and banning others for lifetimes.

The other (in my opinion, more likely) option for UCI is to just sit on this. Is there any deadline to when they must make a ruling on the sanctions to be imposed? Look how long they dragged their feet with Contador. IT could be years before they decide to make a decision - all the while Armstrong raises more money to make more yellow wristbands and tweet "F*** Cancer" about a million more times. Everytime he does that, it just endears that many more people to his machine. By the time UCI finally does get off the pot and make a call - it will be more irrelevant to the public than what it is now.

Maybe I'm just being impatient. But I think USADA needs to strike with ALL of the evidence now, while the iron is maybe not hot, but at least luke warm.