What would you do if you were Lance?

[bobs nob]

'Why am I not surprised?' is what I was focusing on.

To what extent does anyone outside his little circle even care what he has to say? I mean, I have a ****ter account, I am prolly following him and 30 other people, I haven't logged into it in god knows how long and when I did, I don't bother trying to keep up with anyone that I 'follow' least of all him.

So is this just a delusional old man muttering to himself and his imagined sycophantic hordes of followers?

Most people on twitter/facebook are just sad.... 'I'll respond to your boring messages if you'll respond to mine....' and I don't see him very differently.... Gee thanks, while you social networkers are busy stroking each other over your banal existence, I'll be out living my life, come on out if you run out of pretzels and soda.

 

[stephens]

Lance's first reaction is to hire the best help money can buy and hope that they can convince the feds that there is no case. This one's unlikely to succeed, given the existing evidence from the SCA case, Landis etc.

He beat that "evidence" in the SCA civil case, where burden of proof is much lower than in criminal court, so I don't see how anything from the SCA case can hurt him one bit. Landis' credibility hurts him so the feds (if they even care) really need legit physical evidence to make a case.

 

[Tubeless]

He beat that "evidence" in the SCA civil case, where burden of proof is much lower than in criminal court, so I don't see how anything from the SCA case can hurt him one bit. Landis' credibility hurts him so the feds (if they even care) really need legit physical evidence to make a case.

As I recall it, the SCA case was decided by the arbitrators on a technicality - SCA was ruled to be in effect an insurance company that would have to pay if the insured event took place. Lance won the TdF in question and SCA had to pay. Much of the doping evidence was not disputed nor challenged by Lance's attorneys.

It would be logical for his attorneys to take a similar approach with the FDA. Convince the investigator that no relevant laws, under the jurisdiction of the investigating agency were broken. Doping? Yes perhaps by some riders, but nothing that would amount to breaking the law.

The problem for Lance is that this step (determination whether to pursue an indictment) comes after the initial investigation - which includes the power of getting statements from the parties under the threat of a perjury. What will Lance say if / when questioned?

 

[stephens]

He ought to exercise his constitutional right and send a message to the prosecutors that reads, "**** you all if you think I'm going to make your case for you," and then just refuse to take the stand.

Then the PR case to the public is along the lines of "I've done nothing wrong but this is a witch hunt and I'm not going to dignify it by taking the stand. If I have done the things they alleged, they would have actual physical evidence, failed tests, something to prove it. They don't because I'm innocent."

One can't be convicted of perjury if he never says anything! (hello Mr. Bonds, Ms. Jones... what were you thinking?)

 

[Tubeless]

He ought to exercise his constitutional right and send a message to the prosecutors that reads, "**** you all if you think I'm going to make your case for you," and then just refuse to take the stand.

Then the PR case to the public is along the lines of "I've done nothing wrong but this is a witch hunt and I'm not going to dignify it by taking the stand. If I have done the things they alleged, they would have actual physical evidence, failed tests, something to prove it. They don't because I'm innocent."

One can't be convicted of perjury if he never says anything! (hello Mr. Bonds, Ms. Jones... what were you thinking?)

I'd agree Lance is smart enough not to perjure himself. Just read his deposition from the SCA case, he sounds like Col. Olliver North in his bad recollection of amounts, dates and details.

The problem for him is twofold. He's publicly agreed to cooperate - he could reneg but it would not look good. If Lance does not fully cooperate (i.e. with good memory of events), that's going to come across to the investigator as a guilty person trying to save his a** - and will simply add to the motivation to go after him.

A criminal probe changes many rules from the civil case. Witness intimidation is out. You won't find many willing to save a friend with a cover up or a lie. Plea bargains can be made as a condition of testimony. Feds have much better ability to get at documents, phone records, etc. And perhaps the biggest difference is that the fact-finding phase can be open-ended - a determined investigator can apply a broad range of laws later to fit the crime. The SCA case was the exact opposite - a narrow ruling on contract law.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I am sure you could understand that when someone reads this they could get the impression that you are trying to diminish the vast amount of evidence that is out there on Armstrong's doping.



The fact is many of these people that you attempt to minimize will jump at the chance of telling their story in a court of law.

I am not trying to minimise anything despite your best attempts to twist my words. Like i said, time will tell whether they do or not. Plus the "vast" amount of evidence that is "out there" will need to be tested and some of it will be inadmissible or out of jurisdiction.

Happy to continue the conversation in 6 months or so. That way we can speak on facts and not just your speculations of how things will go down.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I'd agree Lance is smart enough not to perjure himself. Just read his deposition from the SCA case, he sounds like Col. Olliver North in his bad recollection of amounts, dates and details.

The problem for him is twofold. He's publicly agreed to cooperate - he could reneg but it would not look good. If Lance does not fully cooperate (i.e. with good memory of events), that's going to come across to the investigator as a guilty person trying to save his a** - and will simply add to the motivation to go after him.

A criminal probe changes many rules from the civil case. Witness intimidation is out. You won't find many willing to save a friend with a cover up or a lie. Plea bargains can be made as a condition of testimony. Feds have much better ability to get at documents, phone records, etc. And perhaps the biggest difference is that the fact-finding phase can be open-ended - a determined investigator can apply a broad range of laws later to fit the crime. The SCA case was the exact opposite - a narrow ruling on contract law.

'Co-operate' doesn't mean spilling your guts it just means that he will talk to them. He who alleges must prove, this is not an episode of criminal minds where alleged bad guy always coughs up.

There is an unwarranted assumption on a number of posts that the documentary evidence is still there. If LA is the bad guy he would have destroyed any evidence he could years ago.

Also the federal case is also narrowly focussed on the actions of an individual or company with regards to criminal law infractions. It will have no focus on the general doping allegations except for where there may be a link to a criminal offence.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

@Lance - do not use Alpe d'Huez PR company, just PM me -like the UCI, I accept cash only.....here is what to do.

Go on Larry King ASAP:

Larry: So, Lance is it true that you were using a blood transfusion on the USPS bus?

You know Larry, I am really glad you asked me that question - cancer effects 8 million people every year and one of our interns at Livestrong.com realized that many cases of cancer are due to blood.
Having had cancer myself I would not want anyone to go through it, even someone with a mental illness who tries to blackmail me like Floyd.
So, I said to Johan, because he is the best manager ever "give the guys new blood". He said "but what happens if people think we are blood doping"? But I insisted, and said "cancer can strike anywhere, even on the side of a mountain, give them the blood, give it to everyone, even the bus driver".

But Lance Floyd said you gave him EPO.

Yes Larry – again cancer.
EPO is often used to help cancer patients. If even someone who is mentally ill and tried to blackmail me like Floyd got cancer I believe getting proper care and having your own drugs is vital, and indeed you can find out more about it by checking Livestrong.com or following me on twitter.

But Floyd claims you bribed the UCI to hide a positive test.

You know Larry, I was visiting a cancer hospital today, and I was thinking about that. The UCI were buying a machine to detect drug use and cancer. I am glad to support that. I am a generous guy- ask any blonde in Texas.

So you’re saying Floyd is lying?

You know Larry, I was thinking about that while I was waiting in line to pick my kids up from school today. The people at USA Cycling will see through Floyd's allegations almost as good as a pair of Livestrong Jawbone Oakley's. Floyd – who remember, is mentally ill, claims have less content than the calories of a Michelob Ultra. If you went to your local Radioshack and bought a lie-detector I know I would pass.

So you are completely denying that you have taken PEDs?

You know Larry, I was out on my Trek for an 8 hour bike ride today and I was thinking how I am the most tested athlete in the history of sport, oh and curing cancer.

superb, really superb

 

[Tubeless]

'Co-operate' doesn't mean spilling your guts it just means that he will talk to them. He who alleges must prove, this is not an episode of criminal minds where alleged bad guy always coughs up.

There is an unwarranted assumption on a number of posts that the documentary evidence is still there. If LA is the bad guy he would have destroyed any evidence he could years ago.

Also the federal case is also narrowly focussed on the actions of an individual or company with regards to criminal law infractions. It will have no focus on the general doping allegations except for where there may be a link to a criminal offence.

That's fair. Let's assume Novitsky and Lance will meet. I'll play Novitsky and you can fill in the answers for Lance - ok?

Novitsky: "Have you ever used PEDs during your career?"
Lance:

Novitsky: "Was there ever a question from your doctors in a hospital room about you having taken PEDs prior to your cancer?"
Lance:

Novitsky: "Did you take EPO during the 1999 TdF?"
Lance:

 

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati
@Lance - do not use Alpe d'Huez PR company, just PM me -like the UCI, I accept cash only.....here is what to do.

Go on Larry King ASAP....

Doc, thanks. This and a cup of coffee started my day out great. I left the cancer in the crapper where it belongs.

 

[Black-Balled]

... I have a ****ter account, ...Most people on twitter/facebook are just sad.... 'I'll respond to your boring messages if you'll respond to mine....' ...you run out of pretzels and soda.

Thanks for helping make titter farcebook the most awesomest wabsites ever, ***.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Disagree

I don't even like the back testing schemes. I'd want a 6 month statute of limitations on everything. Current blood, current tests, current results, current appeal process, current conclusion of illegal or legal, and all of that before one word is leaked to the press.

The consequences of which would be the return of the worst of the bad old days of doping with ever more amazing performances. No one but the athlete with the very worst doping resources would come close to getting caught.

I could do some hazy prognosticating about how empowered the Federations and Director Sportif's become in your dream, but that's grist for another mash.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

@Lance - do not use Alpe d'Huez PR company, just PM me -like the UCI, I accept cash only.....here is what to do.

Go on Larry King ASAP:

Larry: So, Lance is it true that you were using a blood transfusion on the USPS bus?

You know Larry, I am really glad you asked me that question - cancer effects 8 million people every year and one of our interns at Livestrong.com realized that many cases of cancer are due to blood.
Having had cancer myself I would not want anyone to go through it, even someone with a mental illness who tries to blackmail me like Floyd.
So, I said to Johan, because he is the best manager ever "give the guys new blood". He said "but what happens if people think we are blood doping"? But I insisted, and said "cancer can strike anywhere, even on the side of a mountain, give them the blood, give it to everyone, even the bus driver".

But Lance Floyd said you gave him EPO.

Yes Larry – again cancer.
EPO is often used to help cancer patients. If even someone who is mentally ill and tried to blackmail me like Floyd got cancer I believe getting proper care and having your own drugs is vital, and indeed you can find out more about it by checking Livestrong.com or following me on twitter.

But Floyd claims you bribed the UCI to hide a positive test.

You know Larry, I was visiting a cancer hospital today, and I was thinking about that. The UCI were buying a machine to detect drug use and cancer. I am glad to support that. I am a generous guy- ask any blonde in Texas.

So you’re saying Floyd is lying?

You know Larry, I was thinking about that while I was waiting in line to pick my kids up from school today. The people at USA Cycling will see through Floyd's allegations almost as good as a pair of Livestrong Jawbone Oakley's. Floyd – who remember, is mentally ill, claims have less content than the calories of a Michelob Ultra. If you went to your local Radioshack and bought a lie-detector I know I would pass.

So you are completely denying that you have taken PEDs?

You know Larry, I was out on my Trek for an 8 hour bike ride today and I was thinking how I am the most tested athlete in the history of sport, oh and curing cancer.

I don't know if Larry King is known 'worldwide' or not. Imagine a much dumber and less attractive version of Phil Ligett, with about 8 more divorces and instead of sniffing Lance's chamois, he sniffs his own.

It boggles the mind when I see him attempt to make sense. When celebrities need a friendly interviewer, they couldn't have invented a less hostile person. Truly a moron. In an industry full of dim bulbs, it is difficult to distinguish oneself through lack of intelligence. He has.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know if Larry King is known 'worldwide' or not. Imagine a much dumber and less attractive version of Phil Ligett, with about 8 more divorces and instead of sniffing Lance's chamois, he sniffs his own.

It boggles the mind when I see him attempt to make sense. When celebrities need a friendly interviewer, they couldn't have invented a less hostile person. Truly a moron. In an industry full of dim bulbs, it is difficult to distinguish oneself through lack of intelligence. He has.

Say what you want, but the guy is a closer:

Any man that looks like that who can bag a woman like that could sell ice to Tommy D.

 

[Barrus]

I don't know if Larry King is known 'worldwide' or not. Imagine a much dumber and less attractive version of Phil Ligett, with about 8 more divorces and instead of sniffing Lance's chamois, he sniffs his own.

It boggles the mind when I see him attempt to make sense. When celebrities need a friendly interviewer, they couldn't have invented a less hostile person. Truly a moron. In an industry full of dim bulbs, it is difficult to distinguish oneself through lack of intelligence. He has.

I don't think what Lance says would have any effect whatsoever in Europe, he already is hated by most of the fans in the Netherlands, for example (only as far as I know). And really he doesn't need European fans, they aren't the people that ensure that he gets his money, it is all about his American fanbase, this is also the main reason everybody wants to keep him in the sport and in their race, because it ensure publicity in the US

 

[Tubeless]

I don't think what Lance says would have any effect whatsoever in Europe, he already is hated by most of the fans in the Netherlands, for example (only as far as I know). And really he doesn't need European fans, they aren't the people that ensure that he gets his money, it is all about his American fanbase, this is also the main reason everybody wants to keep him in the sport and in their race, because it ensure publicity in the US

Lance is a hero of average Americans who watch exactly one bike race each year (TdF) and are in tears over his cancer survivor story and his "tireless" charity work. No one in the mainstream press has dared to shatter this illusion, despite mounting evidence that his story was quite possibly built on a lie. The recent press has not entirely changed this yet - it's still being framed by his supporters as Landis' word against Lance.

But if there is a formal investigation launched, that will change. The authorities here are keen in working with the press which ensures a drip, drip, drip of details that will reshape Lance's public image. His bike career is probably the least of his worries. He makes his money from his charity work, perhaps somewhat indirectly, but that's a key part of his commercial image.

 

[Barrus]

Lance is a hero of average Americans who watch exactly one bike race each year (TdF) and are in tears over his cancer survivor story and his "tireless" charity work. No one in the mainstream press has dared to shatter this illusion, despite mounting evidence that his story was quite possibly built on a lie. The recent press has not entirely changed this yet - it's still being framed by his supporters as Landis' word against Lance.

But if there is a formal investigation launched, that will change. The authorities here are keen in working with the press which ensures a drip, drip, drip of details that will reshape Lance's public image. His bike career is probably the least of his worries. He makes his money from his charity work, perhaps somewhat indirectly, but that's a key part of his commercial image.

I just misinterpreted Alberto's statement, I thought he meant that Larry king was not known worldwide and therefore wasn't the best podium for Lance to go on. I just meant that Lance does not need a worldwide podium, for he only needs to retain his reputation in the US

 

[Oldman]

Lance is a hero of average Americans who watch exactly one bike race each year (TdF) and are in tears over his cancer survivor story and his "tireless" charity work. No one in the mainstream press has dared to shatter this illusion, despite mounting evidence that his story was quite possibly built on a lie. The recent press has not entirely changed this yet - it's still being framed by his supporters as Landis' word against Lance.

But if there is a formal investigation launched, that will change. The authorities here are keen in working with the press which ensures a drip, drip, drip of details that will reshape Lance's public image. His bike career is probably the least of his worries. He makes his money from his charity work, perhaps somewhat indirectly, but that's a key part of his commercial image.

If there's one thing similar to almost all media operations is they thrive on a truly emotional story, whether it be inspiring or scandalous. The American press and people have a love/hate affair with their heroes and suck up the gory details of iconic fall as much as the next nationality. If it sells media it will stay in the limelight.
Personally, I'd love for the Olsen twins to tell us all how good things were with Texas.

 

[buckwheat]

You guys are great at arguing against believers in santa claus. but what do you really have to say to someone like me who doesn't give one **** about lance armstrong, is quite ready to accept that he doped as much or more than the rest of the peloton, and still doesn't believe he is "guilty," because 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?

I don't give a **** what turns up in ancient blood/urine samples or what scientists can declare based on power graphs or blood passport abnormalities (my own series of blood tests makes me suspect these since i often have changes in hematocrit from one to the next without the other changes that the Clinic's favorite "experts" claim must be present if such changes were natural and not from doping).

I don't even like the back testing schemes. I'd want a 6 month statute of limitations on everything. Current blood, current tests, current results, current appeal process, current conclusion of illegal or legal, and all of that before one word is leaked to the press.

That's why just about the only thing that concerns me about Landis' allegations is the one about a bribe to cover up an actual official test that was failed by Armstrong. THAT is a big deal. That, if proven, should destroy the reputation of Armstrong and anyone else involved because it violates the basic moral contract that most people have: we don't really agree to follow the rules so much as we agree to accept the punishment when we are caught following those rules, so dodging the punishment is a worse crime to us than breaking the rule in the first place.


None of the other usual allegations interest me in the least.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[stephens]

What in the hell are you talking about?

Well, there is an obvious typo it should say, "We don't really agree to follow the rules so much as we agree to accept the punishment when we are caught breaking those rules, so dodging the punishment is a worse crime to us than breaking the rule in the first place."

It should be clear that in the west, the focus is always on the punishment or potential punishment associated with breaking a law/rule. Very little time is spent on discussing why the law makes sense in the first place, and why we should follow it just because it will improve our society: it's all about avoiding the threat of punishment. Go ask ten people why they come to a complete stop at stop signs in their car: I bet 8 will say, "because I don't want to get a ticket," and only 2 will say, "because it's the safe thing to do so I don't run over a little kid or something."

My point about the worst charge being the one that UCI was bribed to coverup a legit positive test is that pretty much everyone accepts that if one is caught, he must pay the penalty. And just as the guy with ten unpaid parking tickets is seen as a worse person than the guy with 100 paid parking tickets, the cyclist who fails a test and bribes his way out of it is worse than the guy who doped and took his ban like a man or the guy who we suspect has doped for ten years and just never tested positive.

 

[buckwheat]

Well, there is an obvious typo it should say, "We don't really agree to follow the rules so much as we agree to accept the punishment when we are caught breaking those rules, so dodging the punishment is a worse crime to us than breaking the rule in the first place."

It should be clear that in the west, the focus is always on the punishment or potential punishment associated with breaking a law/rule. Very little time is spent on discussing why the law makes sense in the first place, and why we should follow it just because it will improve our society: it's all about avoiding the threat of punishment. Go ask ten people why they come to a complete stop at stop signs in their car: I bet 8 will say, "because I don't want to get a ticket," and only 2 will say, "because it's the safe thing to do so I don't run over a little kid or something."

My point about the worst charge being the one that UCI was bribed to coverup a legit positive test is that pretty much everyone accepts that if one is caught, he must pay the penalty. And just as the guy with ten unpaid parking tickets is seen as a worse person than the guy with 100 paid parking tickets, the cyclist who fails a test and bribes his way out of it is worse than the guy who doped and took his ban like a man or the guy who we suspect has doped for ten years and just never tested positive.

Even though I was being a sarcastic a$$, I'm glad I asked.

What you assert may very well be the way the world is, but, it's also probably why we are in such a sorry state.

People who don't cheat, aren't cheating because of the deterrent effect of the punishment?

Seems extremely foreign to my perspective.

Not saying you're generally wrong though. I may be out of touch.

 

[workingclasshero]

Very little time is spent on discussing why the law makes sense in the first place, and why we should follow it just because it will improve our society: it's all about avoiding the threat of punishment. Go ask ten people why they come to a complete stop at stop signs in their car: I bet 8 will say, "because I don't want to get a ticket," and only 2 will say, "because it's the safe thing to do so I don't run over a little kid or something."

i reckon you're being a bit too philosophical and a touch melodramatic there fella

rules and laws like that stop sign one are accepted by everyone because they know that sign is there for their own and someone else's safety.

you can also get a ticket for speeding, yet noone keeps within the speed limit on the motorway, most people think they can drive faster without risking owt for anyone, including themselves

 

[stephens]

i reckon you're being a bit too philosophical and a touch melodramatic there fella

Well, this is the internet!

 

[Epicycle]

Toto has got it all figured out.

http://velocitynation.com/content/toto/2010/toto-turns-186

 

[Ferminal]

Toto has got it all figured out.

http://velocitynation.com/content/toto/2010/toto-turns-186

bahaha!

"Oh, pull a "Gusev". Why didn't you say that"

Best line from Toto I've seen!