What would you do if you were Lance?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Race Radio said:
thanks for once again proving that you have not read the Ashenden interview.

Thank you for once agian failing to explain how this proof equates to a doping violation and yet Lance still rides.

Nothing in the interview addresses any of the problems with chain of custody or any method of getting around those issues. :confused:
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Ohhh, I believe the OP was "What would you do if you were Lance?"

If I were Lance I'd be playing the field before I did my stretch in prison.

He's going to have to work on his rap a little bit after he's disgraced.

Also, hiding my assets.

Lets keep this thread on point.

Any more suggestions?

Maybe you can help out Lance because we know his lackeys are monitoring here.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
stephens said:
guilt to me means an irrefutable positive test given in a proper manner following the sporting regulations and generally accepted human rights laws of western civilization?

Basso, Ulrich, Scarponi, Marion Jones, Kyle Leogrande. Never tested positive.
 
Oct 29, 2009
433
0
0
If I were Lance I'd

be Chair of Communications (Twitter) at Duke University

and

Visiting Professor of Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth

or

The fifth Beatle

or

A member of the Holy Trinity (he who overcomes death...for a while)
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
buckwheat said:
Ohhh, I believe the OP was "What would you do if you were Lance?"

If I were Lance I'd be playing the field before I did my stretch in prison.

He's going to have to work on his rap a little bit after he's disgraced.

Also, hiding my assets.

Lets keep this thread on point.

Any more suggestions?

Maybe you can help out Lance because we know his lackeys are monitoring here.

And the answer remains - nothing. Keep riding his bike.

Floyd has accussations and a 'journal.' If someone came out and accussed me of doping with that? I'd be just fine as well.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
gree0232 said:
And the answer remains - nothing. Keep riding his bike.

Floyd has accussations and a 'journal.' If someone came out and accussed me of doping with that? I'd be just fine as well.

So you're predicting he's on schedule for a TdF start?

If he doesn't start, barring injury,:rolleyes: do you think there's any significance in that?
 
Oct 29, 2009
433
0
0
gree0232 said:
And the answer remains - nothing. Keep riding his bike.

Floyd has accussations and a 'journal.' If someone came out and accussed me of doping with that? I'd be just fine as well.

you're an effing doper
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
He should hold a press conference and take all his kids sans wife(s), babysitters, mom. Confess and sincerely apologize and of course cry. Then when the reporters start to ask questions attempt to answer them as he is still trying to stop crying and have the kids start to get angry at the reporters and yell at them to stop making their dad cry, he's been through enough. Stay on the podium way past the a lotted time and keep attempting to field questions but never fully answering anything and have the kids still on the side supporting their dad in any way a kid could to make it look like they are the most tight nit family on the planet. Then the kids will start to cry if the reporters do get a bit rough or dig too deep with the questions. In the end have his mom come call the press conference off and gather them all up and exit stage left.

Other than that, he'll be fried in the media. The lack of wife(s)/moms will make it look like Lance is the only parental unit at home and gather some "keep the family together" or "keep him out of jail" supporters at the very least.

I'm not for that but if I were him I'd do that to avoid being a total pariah to society. Kids will get him the angle to not totally fail.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Race Radio said:
Basso, Ulrich, Scarponi, Marion Jones, Kyle Leogrande. Never tested positive.

Ok, edit my standards to include personal admissions of doping. But sometimes I don't even like confessions because sometimes I find the techniques used by the authorities to force those admissions appalling from a human rights standpoint.

It'd be so much better to just limit it to positive tests. If the agencies can't outsmart the athletes in inventing tests that work, then that is their problem! The rule should not be "you can't put X into your body." The rule should be "if we catch you, in a way we all agree on, putting X into your body, you are banned and prosecuted."

But don't make up for their failures in doing that with innuendo, totally invasive testing schemes (twice a day, even!), back testing for things years later which brings up all sorts of chain of custody issues and right to appeal issues (what if a witness involved is now dead?) and so on. That stuff makes cycling a bigger mockery than the doping itself!
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Race Radio said:
Basso, Ulrich, Scarponi, Marion Jones, Kyle Leogrande. Never tested positive.

What gets me is that Tyler felt he had to dope. I mean, Olympic Gold Medalist and all.:D

Gree, is Tyler a legitimate Gold Medalist or he started right after the biggest victory of his career?

Please help me understand. You have a lot of experience with corruption.;)
 
stephens said:
Ok, edit my standards to include personal admissions of doping. But sometimes I don't even like confessions because sometimes I find the techniques used by the authorities to force those admissions appalling from a human rights standpoint.
It'd be so much better to just limit it to positive tests. If the agencies can't outsmart the athletes in inventing tests that work, then that is their problem! The rule should not be "you can't put X into your body." The rule should be "if we catch you, in a way we all agree on, putting X into your body, you are banned and prosecuted."

But don't make up for their failures in doing that with innuendo, totally invasive testing schemes (twice a day, even!), back testing for things years later which brings up all sorts of chain of custody issues and right to appeal issues (what if a witness involved is now dead?) and so on. That stuff makes cycling a bigger mockery than the doping itself!

LOL....Firstly Ullrich did not test positive nor admit.
Secondly, do you think Pat and Hein use electric shock treatment or something? :D
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
ElChingon said:
He should hold a press conference and take all his kids sans wife(s), babysitters, mom. Confess and sincerely apologize and of course cry. Then when the reporters start to ask questions attempt to answer them as he is still trying to stop crying and have the kids start to get angry at the reporters and yell at them to stop making their dad cry, he's been through enough. Stay on the podium way past the a lotted time and keep attempting to field questions but never fully answering anything and have the kids still on the side supporting their dad in any way a kid could to make it look like they are the most tight nit family on the planet. Then the kids will start to cry if the reporters do get a bit rough or dig too deep with the questions. In the end have his mom come call the press conference off and gather them all up and exit stage left.

Other than that, he'll be fried in the media. The lack of wife(s)/moms will make it look like Lance is the only parental unit at home and gather some "keep the family together" or "keep him out of jail" supporters at the very least.

I'm not for that but if I were him I'd do that to avoid being a total pariah to society. Kids will get him the angle to not totally fail.

I agree....but I would agree to anything that involves Linda and the hot new babymomma.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Digger said:
LOL....Firstly Ullrich did not test positive nor admit.
Secondly, do you think Pat and Hein use electric shock treatment or something? :D

No but Ullrich's DNA did match bags found in Puerto, and his bank records seemed to indicate payment to Fuentes.

He retired, settled, and the prosecution was finally called off based on that retirement.

I think it is fairly safe to assess that as proveable involvement in doping.

Funny that up until this point we cannot seem to find these things for the people that Floyd accussed? Either a money trail or blood bags.

If the goal is to remove dopers, are you really concerned about it meeting only ONE method of proof?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
Ok, edit my standards to include personal admissions of doping. But sometimes I don't even like confessions because sometimes I find the techniques used by the authorities to force those admissions appalling from a human rights standpoint.

It'd be so much better to just limit it to positive tests. If the agencies can't outsmart the athletes in inventing tests that work, then that is their problem! The rule should not be "you can't put X into your body." The rule should be "if we catch you, in a way we all agree on, putting X into your body, you are banned and prosecuted."

But don't make up for their failures in doing that with innuendo, totally invasive testing schemes (twice a day, even!), back testing for things years later which brings up all sorts of chain of custody issues and right to appeal issues (what if a witness involved is now dead?) and so on. That stuff makes cycling a bigger mockery than the doping itself!

The problem with Armstrong is much less about his doping, and much more about the manner by which he went after the people who dared counter his narrative. If he were just some other doper who was doping, then he would just be one of the names on the list. However, his actions towards people like Betsy, Bassons, Simeoni, and others has, for the most part, created the atmosphere here. You combine that with his "I had cancer, and other people have cancer, therefore you are not allowed to question me" media persona offends many people including me.

You believe what you want. You seem like a decent person who has questions about all of this, and that is fine. People have different opinions about every subject, and I understand your concerns. They do not sway me from my opinion, but I am sure you will not lose sleep over that.
 
Oct 29, 2009
433
0
0
What about a new thread: What would you do if you were Lance's fan? I think you'd defend him beyond the limits of credulity until you'd have to kill your idol to spare him the pain.

Did it all the time in the 30s
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
The problem with Armstrong is much less about his doping, and much more about the manner by which he went after the people who dared counter his narrative. If he were just some other doper who was doping, then he would just be one of the names on the list. However, his actions towards people like Betsy, Bassons, Simeoni, and others has, for the most part, created the atmosphere here. You combine that with his "I had cancer, and other people have cancer, therefore you are not allowed to question me" media persona offends many people including me.

You believe what you want. You seem like a decent person who has questions about all of this, and that is fine. People have different opinions about every subject, and I understand your concerns. They do not sway me from my opinion, but I am sure you will not lose sleep over that.

I guess the way Lance goes after his accusers, at least some of them anyway, doesn't bother me so much because I'm the type that believes that it is none of those people's business and they ought to have just kept their mouths shut! It is up to the sporting authorities to prove a rule violation by their own testing methods. Not by the press or insurance companies rounding up wives of former teammates and seeing what they have to say on the matter. So...if you don't want to be smeared by a guy like Lance, then don't get involved. Mind your own business. Leave the police work to the police!
 
Oct 29, 2009
433
0
0
stephens said:
I guess the way Lance goes after his accusers, at least some of them anyway, doesn't bother me so much because I'm the type that believes that it is none of those people's business and they ought to have just kept their mouths shut! It is up to the sporting authorities to prove a rule violation by their own testing methods. Not by the press or insurance companies rounding up wives of former teammates and seeing what they have to say on the matter. So...if you don't want to be smeared by a guy like Lance, then don't get involved. Mind your own business. Leave the police work to the police!

I guess the same goes for his defenders
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
CycloErgoSum said:
I guess the same goes for his defenders

Absolutely. All anyone should really say on the matter is that such and such cyclist hasn't been sanctioned and therefore is allowed to compete and therefore it is fine for people to root for him or root against him as with any other competitor. All the rest of the gossip should be left to the women at the old folks home.

Now, if it can be proven that someone did test positive and was about to be sanctioned and bought their way out of it, we have a huge problem!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
I guess the way Lance goes after his accusers, at least some of them anyway, doesn't bother me so much because I'm the type that believes that it is none of those people's business and they ought to have just kept their mouths shut! It is up to the sporting authorities to prove a rule violation by their own testing methods. Not by the press or insurance companies rounding up wives of former teammates and seeing what they have to say on the matter. So...if you don't want to be smeared by a guy like Lance, then don't get involved. Mind your own business. Leave the police work to the police!

You do understand that Betsy was subpoenaed to testify as was Simeoni. Bassons just happened to mention that he was racing clean...he never even mentioned Lance. You do know what happens if you ignore a subpoena, right? You do know that when you testify, they make you swear to tell the truth, and that if you are found to have lied, you will be prosecuted for perjury, right? Betsy didn't volunteer, neither did Simeoni. I would suggest your rant is a bit naive and ignorant of the facts.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
gree0232 said:
No but Ullrich's DNA did match bags found in Puerto, and his bank records seemed to indicate payment to Fuentes.

He retired, settled, and the prosecution was finally called off based on that retirement.

I think it is fairly safe to assess that as proveable involvement in doping.

So you are OK with the chain of custody for Ulrich Blood bags but not Lance's 99 samples? Why would expect anything different from you? Very flexible when it comes to your man crush.

The UCI has not called off the investigation, in fact after Valverde lost his final appeal they asked the Swiss Fed to continue against Ulrich. The only thing that was settled was the German charges.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
You do understand that Betsy was subpoenaed to testify as was Simeoni. Bassons just happened to mention that he was racing clean...he never even mentioned Lance. You do know what happens if you ignore a subpoena, right? You do know that when you testify, they make you swear to tell the truth, and that if you are found to have lied, you will be prosecuted for perjury, right? Betsy didn't volunteer, neither did Simeoni. I would suggest your rant is a bit naive and ignorant of the facts.

Betsy has gone way beyond her subpoenaed testimony though, in subsequent statements to the press, hasn't she? And how did SCA ever come up with the idea of calling her as a witness in the first place? Somebody spoke out of turn about something that was none of their business or SCA wouldn't have known about this alleged hospital room "confession" in the first place. But overall I was disagreeing with the entire farce of the situation that lead to the subpoena's in that case. SCA shoud have accepted the same standards I'm applying: no positive test that led to sanction equals pay the man his bonus.

None of this means I think Armstrong is clean or a decent human being. I just despise the whole circus of doping allegations even more.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
stephens said:
Betsy has gone way beyond her subpoenaed testimony though, in subsequent statements to the press, hasn't she? But overall I was disagreeing with the entire farce of the situation that lead to the subpoena's in that case. SCA shoud have accepted the same standards I'm applying: no positive test that led to sanction equals pay the man his bonus.

None of this means I think Armstrong is clean or a decent human being. I just despise the whole circus of doping allegations even more.

I think that if you will follow the chain, you will see that Betsy was responding to attacks against her by Armstrong after he found out that she was not going to testify the way he wanted. Maybe you should apply the same standard to Armstrong when it comes to other people?
 
Oct 29, 2009
433
0
0
There's a line in Milton that goes something like, 'Where men can speak freely to inform other men..'

Lance is nasty and dirty, sanction or not. He treats people poorly who disagree with him for what can only be construed as nefarious reasons. Rats inform on other rats. That's how we can tell they're rats.
 
No, Lance has never been sanctioned from an official positive test. But if that's the only thing it takes for some of you to think he doped, or has cheated the system or harmed the sport, then I can only say that's a perfect example of why cycling is in the sorry state it is today regarding the endemic of doping that is ruining the sport and making it a sham to the rest of the world.

la.margna said:
like any other cyclist, he will only confess what can be evidenced. not an inch more. so highly unlikely that he will ever have a major problem, unfortunately.

Do you really think it's only hard evidence? What if federal investigators, through the power of subpoena, can get several other people to testify against Lance, and their stories all add up? While he may still remain silent through that, he could indeed have a major problem.

Recall though, the thread title is What would you do if you were Lance? And I answered that I would cooperate with authorities, and tell the truth about what I had done, as it's the right thing to do.

RR - You need to learn to use the ignore feature.