Armstrong allowed to race Usa Triathlon series
http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...-lance-armstrong-eligible-for-our-races_55462
http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...-lance-armstrong-eligible-for-our-races_55462
- Status
- Jul 30, 2011
- 7,654
- 155
- 17,680
cleanmarine said:
I'll come back to rhubroma's question when I have a keyboard. As to yours: truth is a historical effect, not a factual ground. As can be seen by the reactions of the fanboyz and the cancered hopeless. Therefore, what you are arguing for is only a legislated social effect. One that occurs outside you, as did the events of TDF 1999-2005.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
aphronesis said:
Cheating corruption and lies is not legislated. It is a contract of humanity which binds us together. It is called morals. Innate god given morals.
college
BANNED
- Jun 10, 2012
- 147
- 0
- 0
Caruut said:
Normally when people have an opinion on a subject they will say things like “everyone” there was no survey unless you missed a call from CBS news about the upcoming election in November.
usada will be passing over the evidence when? I am not sure of the rules but I doubt that usada has to give up anything until if and when a hearing is held.
- Oct 30, 2011
- 2,639
- 0
- 0
college said:
I could post a few where I don't if that helps. On the other hand, you haven't responded to the point I made in post. Given how irate the troll comment got you, I think you would have tried to put me down if you could. Are you genuinely advocating not listening to those you don't like?
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
college said:
I don't follow his account as I am blocked. But to answer your question, with his latest outbursts and meltdown I would suggest the answer is comedy and entertainment.
- Oct 30, 2011
- 2,639
- 0
- 0
college said:
No, normally when people are trying to argue a point they can't back up properly, they throw in words like "everyone" to try and create a false impression of consensus on their side. That is exactly what you did - say "everyone thinks" when all you really meant was "I think".
- May 14, 2010
- 5,303
- 4
- 0
Man. Go away for awhile and look what happens.
I haven't read the entire thread yet (stopped at page 20, out of 118), so someone else may have pointed this out:
It was a tall, somewhat troublesome, expensive order, even for the U.S. Justice Department, to prosecute a case against the handsome 7-time Tour winner and full time cancer fighter. He had success written all over him, with a charity that drummed up millions of dollars a year to "defeat this terrible disease, and ease the suffering of so many." He had large corporations behind him, and politicians in his pocket - not to mention the UCI, past and present. He was extremely well funded and loved by a very large number of people the world over.
So why take all that on? If you don't have to, I mean.
Why not hand off the evidence gathered to USADA and others, where the bar of proof is lower, if only slightly, and the stakes not quite so high, seemingly. Let them do their thing, resulting in a thoroughly discredited athlete who has been stripped of all racing titles from 1998 onwards; an athlete who has consequently been chewed up in the press and whose charitable organization has long since jettisoned his name or else itself been held up to unfavorable scrutiny; an athlete, moreover, whose support has dwindled to little or nothing and whose coffers have been all but dried up by the effort to fight and survive.
Result? A soft(er) target.
The Justice Department has already done most of the heavy lifting with its investigation. Now it hands the evidence off to USADA, which handles matters from a sporting end and chops our hero down to size. When in the process certain matters of a criminal nature are brought to light, the Justice Depart is justified and indeed obligated to start a new investigation (or, if you prefer, to restart this one). When they do, it will be against a broke, discouraged, discredited person who is proven to be a liar and conspirator, one who, moreover, has few if any genuine athletic accomplishments to his name, no charity to call his own, no corporation or politician willing to go to bat for him, and far fewer fans than before.
In an interview around the time of the Men's Journal article, Armstrong said he wasn't going to contest anything anymore; and if that meant giving up a Tour title or two, that was an outcome he'd be happy with. With this, he was signaling USADA that he'd make a deal, thereby saving them the expense and trouble of a full-court press. Their response is seen in this letter: we don't want a Tour title or two in exchange for going away. We want it all. The figure standing in shadows around the corner is none other than Jeff Novitsky and the U.S. Justice Department. At least, that's how I think it will play out.
I haven't read the entire thread yet (stopped at page 20, out of 118), so someone else may have pointed this out:
It was a tall, somewhat troublesome, expensive order, even for the U.S. Justice Department, to prosecute a case against the handsome 7-time Tour winner and full time cancer fighter. He had success written all over him, with a charity that drummed up millions of dollars a year to "defeat this terrible disease, and ease the suffering of so many." He had large corporations behind him, and politicians in his pocket - not to mention the UCI, past and present. He was extremely well funded and loved by a very large number of people the world over.
So why take all that on? If you don't have to, I mean.
Why not hand off the evidence gathered to USADA and others, where the bar of proof is lower, if only slightly, and the stakes not quite so high, seemingly. Let them do their thing, resulting in a thoroughly discredited athlete who has been stripped of all racing titles from 1998 onwards; an athlete who has consequently been chewed up in the press and whose charitable organization has long since jettisoned his name or else itself been held up to unfavorable scrutiny; an athlete, moreover, whose support has dwindled to little or nothing and whose coffers have been all but dried up by the effort to fight and survive.
Result? A soft(er) target.
The Justice Department has already done most of the heavy lifting with its investigation. Now it hands the evidence off to USADA, which handles matters from a sporting end and chops our hero down to size. When in the process certain matters of a criminal nature are brought to light, the Justice Depart is justified and indeed obligated to start a new investigation (or, if you prefer, to restart this one). When they do, it will be against a broke, discouraged, discredited person who is proven to be a liar and conspirator, one who, moreover, has few if any genuine athletic accomplishments to his name, no charity to call his own, no corporation or politician willing to go to bat for him, and far fewer fans than before.
In an interview around the time of the Men's Journal article, Armstrong said he wasn't going to contest anything anymore; and if that meant giving up a Tour title or two, that was an outcome he'd be happy with. With this, he was signaling USADA that he'd make a deal, thereby saving them the expense and trouble of a full-court press. Their response is seen in this letter: we don't want a Tour title or two in exchange for going away. We want it all. The figure standing in shadows around the corner is none other than Jeff Novitsky and the U.S. Justice Department. At least, that's how I think it will play out.
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,589
- 8,447
- 28,180
college said:
People follow it for a variety of reasons. Fans, and those who want to hear the story from the horse's mouth. If one is doing any serious work on the topic, it's probably worth checking it occasionally.
But then, one need not really follow his Twitter account to get this information, right? Because people who do follow it send out links to the pertinent information all the time, because it's...Twitter. And the internet. Right?
So the question is a red herring, right? Because it truly doesn't matter if you do or don't follow Armstrong on Twitter. Because it has nothing to do with the pertinent facts in the case.
It sure seems like your entire take here is an attempt at obfuscation. I hope I'm wrong, because you seem to be suggesting that people interested in the story should not be following a primary source. Why would you suggest that? It sounds like some kind of snide attack, but gee I hope I'm off base.
college
BANNED
- Jun 10, 2012
- 147
- 0
- 0
Caruut said:
I am not a fan of Lebron James. I don’t follow him on Twitter. Does that clear it up for you? I don’t want to hear what he has to say. Clear now?
Usada is a corrupt organization in my opinion that should have to be investigated.
Who is irate? Where did I get all out of turn or out of hand with my posts? Did I call someone names? Nope. You did that all by yourself.
- Jul 30, 2011
- 7,654
- 155
- 17,680
cleanmarine said:
I'd love to discuss this with you, but there are three separarate propositions in your last sentence alone--and they encapsulate the swampy indignation of many-- although not all, some do articulate clear registers-- of those clamoring behind this latest development. So it's worth pressing this because until those distinctions are parsed, there is a great deal of middle ground binding both sides.
college
BANNED
- Jun 10, 2012
- 147
- 0
- 0
Caruut said:
That is how it is going to appear in the USA sport talk show world. Try not to listen to much sports radio because the majority of the opinion you will hear there is going to share what the talk show in Boston said. Some people probably do not know what usada is or what they are supposed to do. From the way they have handled the testing of all the cyclist for the past 20 years it seems to me that they do not know what they are supposed to do either.
- Oct 30, 2011
- 2,639
- 0
- 0
college said:
I'd say well done on not following him then. Lance Armstrong is the subject of a story that many here are interested in. His position on events is extremely relevant to the case.
The tone of your posts continues to make me assume that you're irate. I'll take your word for it that you aren't.
college said:
USADA has only been around since 2000 - obviously you don't know what you're talking about either. Thanks though for taking up all the bandwidth on this thread with your fascinating opinions about Twitter subscriptions...
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
college said:
Can you expand your opinion and give some reasons why you believe USADA is corrupt, thanks.
According to the Wallstreet Journal Sentiment Tracker:
"Seems like most of the social media world believes that where there’s smoke, there’s almost certainly a fire; 53% were anti-Armstrong, while 31% supported him, 13% were over the whole story, and 3% took a lighthearted, joking perspective."
http://www.netbase.com/sentiment/la...se/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"Seems like most of the social media world believes that where there’s smoke, there’s almost certainly a fire; 53% were anti-Armstrong, while 31% supported him, 13% were over the whole story, and 3% took a lighthearted, joking perspective."
http://www.netbase.com/sentiment/la...se/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram