# The Armstrong Lie



## User (9 Jul 2014)




----------



## Crackle (9 Jul 2014)

Without a farking doubt.


----------



## Panter (9 Jul 2014)

I don't think he doped, but I do think he used a transfusion. So, I clicked yes.



(and that's as a long serving member of the Armstrong fan club, even in denial after the allegations were admitted. In fact, sod it, he's still innocent. He's been brainwashed and bullied into this, bullied, I tell you)


----------



## Crackle (9 Jul 2014)

Panter said:


> *I don't think he doped, but I do think he used a transfusion*. So, I clicked yes.
> 
> 
> 
> (and that's as a long serving member of the Armstrong fan club, even in denial after the allegations were admitted. In fact, sod it, he's still innocent. He's been brainwashed and bullied into this, bullied, I tell you)



I'm curious to know how you've managed to separate those two in your head


----------



## BSRU (9 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3170345, member: 45"]He answered yes to all of Oprah's questions. Why would this time. Be different?[/QUOTE]
No he didn't, he wouldn't answer the question about the conversation, regarding taking performance enhancing drugs, in his hospital room when he was being treated for cancer.


----------



## BUR70N (9 Jul 2014)

Betsy is still fuming over that...


----------



## MikeG (9 Jul 2014)

BSRU said:


> No he didn't,





BSRU said:


> he wouldn't answer the question about the conversation, regarding taking performance enhancing drugs, in his hospital room when he was being treated for cancer.


The former seems in no way related to the latter to me.


----------



## BSRU (9 Jul 2014)

MikeG said:


> The former seems in no way related to the latter to me.


He was asked the question and did not give a yes or no answer.


----------



## MikeG (9 Jul 2014)

BSRU said:


> He was asked the question and did not give a yes or no answer.


Which doesn't mean that he wasn't doping in 2009


----------



## Panter (9 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> I'm curious to know how you've managed to separate those two in your head



Probably because my understanding is completely off! 
I thought that transfusions worked by taking blood with elevated Red blood cells (after rest periods) and then adding it at a later stage to boost the total number of Red blood cells when needed. Therefore, no drugs used, but still cheating.
Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong! (as I often am)


----------



## BUR70N (9 Jul 2014)

Didn't think of that, thought it was used to get rid of the extra blood cells.. But yours is a better way..


----------



## Crackle (9 Jul 2014)

Panter said:


> Probably because my understanding is completely off!
> I thought that transfusions worked by taking blood with elevated Red blood cells (after rest periods) and then adding it at a later stage to boost the total number of Red blood cells when needed. Therefore, no drugs used, but still cheating.
> Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong! (as I often am)


No you're right but it's still doping, blood doping is the commonly used term. You don't necessarily need to use drugs to dope.


----------



## BSRU (9 Jul 2014)

MikeG said:


> Which doesn't mean that he wasn't doping in 2009


Confused.
My reply is to the post about Armstrong answering all of Oprah's questions.


----------



## MikeG (9 Jul 2014)

BSRU said:


> Confused.
> My reply is to the post about Armstrong answering all of Oprah's questions.


Well, you didn't quote anyone, and so I assumed you were answering the thread title/ OP. Apologies. I do have a number of members on Ignore, so don't always know what people are responding to if they don't use the quote function (why on earth is it called Reply on this forum?)


----------



## BSRU (9 Jul 2014)

MikeG said:


> Well, you didn't quote anyone


My original reply does have the quote I was replying to.


----------



## MikeG (9 Jul 2014)

BSRU said:


> My original reply does have the quote I was replying to.


Not that I can see. Maybe the ignore function removes that for me.


----------



## Ganymede (9 Jul 2014)

MikeG said:


> Not that I can see. Maybe the ignore function removes that for me.


It does.


----------



## BSRU (9 Jul 2014)

MikeG said:


> Not that I can see. Maybe the ignore function removes that for me.


That explains it, I had to double check to make sure I wasn't making it up.


----------



## MikeG (9 Jul 2014)

BSRU said:


> That explains it, I had to double check to make sure I wasn't making it up.


So did I!


----------



## Panter (9 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> No you're right but it's still doping, blood doping is the commonly used term. You don't necessarily need to use drugs to dope.



Ah, OK, I honestly didn't know that. I assumed it was the use of drugs because of the dope reference. Thanks for the clarification!

Does Noodley still use the forums?


----------



## Panter (9 Jul 2014)

User3094 said:


> End result is still the same as EPO innit (increased red blood cell count).



Yes, but it's not actually using drugs, it's hard work and initiative.


----------



## Ganymede (9 Jul 2014)

Panter said:


> Yes, but it's not actually using drugs, it's hard work and initiative.


And needles


----------



## Panter (9 Jul 2014)

It was a tad tongue in cheek, apologies!


----------



## Spoked Wheels (9 Jul 2014)

No, I don't think he did. He was asked about it and he said "trust me,I didn't"


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Jul 2014)

Watched the program last night. A really good insight, even after reading various books.

I find him fascinating. He has, or had, so much drive and self belief - making him an ideal athlete, but with a screw loose in the moral scruple department. If he hadn't been an athlete he could have ended up as a gang boss, or the CEO of a multinational, or a successful politician. Certainly not an ordiary Joe.

If he hadn't happened to turn up at the right time to ride the wave of emerging methods of oxygen vector doping, it's entirely possible he could have become a genuinely great cyclist but I'll bet he could never have become an uncontroversial one.

Betsy and Frankie Andreu made me laugh, how they came over. She's so smart and focused and he seems to be a complete dork. I can just imagine him getting back to the Andreu household ... Betsy: You sold the cow for _beans_?? Frankie: But they're _magic _beans, Betsy.


----------



## Crackle (11 Jul 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Betsy and Frankie Andreu made me laugh, how they came over. She's so smart and focused and he seems to be a complete dork. I can just imagine him getting back to the Andreu household ... Betsy: You sold the cow for _beans_?? Frankie: But they're _magic _beans, Betsy.





Betsy is some woman. I wouldn't want to be on her wrong side.


----------



## ducakrugs (11 Jul 2014)

I think the media want super humans....supply meets demand


----------



## ducakrugs (11 Jul 2014)

MikeG said:


> The former seems in no way related to the latter to me.


Yes and no one realises the man had Testicular cancer ....What a guy and a role model whatever the doping situation....


----------



## fossyant (11 Jul 2014)

The guy is a nasty bastid. No-one else has damaged cycling like he has. Not an inspiration. I'd personally shove a stick through his front wheels. Nothing more than a dirty rotten lying cheat.

Good riddance !


----------



## cd365 (11 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> Betsy is some woman. I wouldn't want to be on her wrong side.


Agreed, seemed very driven and determined


----------



## Archie_tect (11 Jul 2014)

Presumably anyone recovering from cancer treatment using prescribed substances or practices as part of their recovery programme, which are banned by the cycling ruling body, would not be able to take part in any sporting event,

Armstrong should have been open about what he was taking as part of his cancer recovery- he wasn't and so the lies and corruption deepened.


----------



## BSRU (11 Jul 2014)

ducakrugs said:


> Yes and no one realises the man had Testicular cancer ....What a guy and a role model whatever the doping situation....


Is that Lance


----------



## Ganymede (11 Jul 2014)

ducakrugs said:


> Yes and no one realises the man had Testicular cancer


"no one realises"??? I think he's worked his testicular cancer for all it's worth for years. Everybody realises.


Dogtrousers said:


> he could have ended up as a gang boss,


Still could - might be his only career option now. You could argue he's already _been_ one.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Jul 2014)

ducakrugs said:


> Yes and no one realises the man had Testicular cancer ....What a guy and a role model whatever the doping situation....


----------



## uclown2002 (11 Jul 2014)

ducakrugs said:


> Yes and no one realises the man had Testicular cancer ....What a guy and a role model whatever the doping situation....


Welcome to the forum 
nobber!


----------



## User169 (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Who would do such a thing?


----------



## User169 (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> BUT
> I think within the next 10 - 15 years Armstrong will again be recognised as a great cyclist who won 7 TDF's, not officially.



There's not much one can say to counter this amount of lunacy!

Lets face it, LA has won the same number of TdFs as most of us here: zero.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I agree with you but don't think Armstrong will fade away, the man will slowly but surely regain some "fame" to most of the world he cheaped at racing his bike, which they will find forgivable, sports stars from much much bigger sports in Amercia have bounced back from notoriety, to me its an inevitability like it or not.....




Infamous more like.


----------



## User169 (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I agree with you but don't think Armstrong will fade away, the man will slowly but surely regain some "fame" to most of the world he cheaped at racing his bike, which they will find forgivable, sports stars from much much bigger sports in Amercia have bounced back from notoriety, to me its an inevitability like it or not.....



OK. I see what you're saying now, but I still hope youre wrong!


----------



## tug benson (11 Jul 2014)

ducakrugs said:


> Yes and no one realises the man had Testicular cancer ....What a guy and a role model whatever the doping situation....


I really hope you're trolling here


----------



## ianrauk (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I'm not so sure, in the small world of cycling yes, in the world of celebrity maybe not,




Most of my work colleagues know who LA is and his story. Not one of them is a cyclist and has an interest in cycling. Ask them to name other cyclists they name Cav and Wiggins and that's it.
How many times over the years have you been shouted 'oi Lance' by a ped? I have lost count.


----------



## tigger (11 Jul 2014)

Of course he did. As did Schleck and Contador. Which means Wiggo was the true winner (assuming he was clean of course!!!)


----------



## themosquitoking (11 Jul 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Most of my work colleagues know who LA is and his story. Not one of them is a cyclist and has an interest in cycling. Ask them to name other cyclists they name Cav and Wiggins and that's it.
> How many times over the years have you been shouted 'oi Lance' by a ped? I have lost count.


Not once yet, is it a rite of passage?


----------



## ianrauk (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> but do they really care what he did, most don't, and in America they are much more "forgivening" I couldn't think of another word.... as I've said I think its an inevitability....




Not that they care rather then they know.


----------



## fossyant (12 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I don't think he has done any real lasting damage, most people think cycling is/was dirty, yet millions turned out to watch the TDF in England irrespective of Armstrong and his doping...its done, gone, most people just don't care about Armstrong or the other dopers of the past..
> BUT
> I think within the next 10 - 15 years Armstrong will again be recognised as a great cyclist who won 7 TDF's, not officially, the fact he is an American will help alot and the character of the man, I just can't see him fading away into obscurity, even this film has change many peoples views on him..



Not by me he won't. Lying cheat.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I don't think he has done any real lasting damage, most people think cycling is/was dirty, yet millions turned out to watch the TDF in England irrespective of Armstrong and his doping...its done, gone, most people just don't care about Armstrong or the other dopers of the past..
> BUT
> I think within the next 10 - 15 years Armstrong will again be recognised as a great cyclist who won 7 TDF's, not officially, the fact he is an American will help alot and the character of the man, I just can't see him fading away into obscurity, even this film has change many peoples views on him..




Look at the "reverence" with which Tom Simpson is regarded

He was also a cheat and took illegal drugs to enhance his performance, yet this has somehow become an acceptable part of his "legend", and his death through the misuse of drugs somehow a heroic event


----------



## Ganymede (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Look at the "reverence" with which Tom Simpson is regarded
> 
> He was also a cheat and took illegal drugs to enhance his performance, yet this has somehow become an acceptable part of his "legend", and his death through the misuse of drugs somehow a heroic event


But LA is still alive. That and the fact that he was such a manipulator. Die young and a halo surrounds you because of how unbearable it is to contemplate.


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Look at the "reverence" with which Tom Simpson is regarded
> 
> He was also a cheat and took illegal drugs to enhance his performance, yet this has somehow become an acceptable part of his "legend", and his death through the misuse of drugs somehow a heroic event


They're not comparable, except by you. You keep bringing this up like you have a point when you don't. Armstrong the Sociopath versus Gentleman Tom. And we know about the drugs, we all read Kimmage's book when it came out, you seem unable to contextualise this.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Simpson was a cheat who used drugs to enhance his performance......even if done in a nice gentlemanly way

Or are you denying that he was a cheat?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

As for contextualising.....

It is quite a simple context

Cheating is unacceptable 

Performance enhancing drugs are unacceptable

We should be condemning anyone who has cheated or taken performance enhancing drugs


It is hypocritical to accept the behaviour in some and not others 


The fact that you only seem to be able to think in terms of Armstrong is not really my problem


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2014)

Ah the black and white argument, beloved of so many. In fact my response to Simpson is many layered. Why don't you compare Armstrong and Pantani, contemporaries viewed in entirely different lights.


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> As for contextualising.....
> 
> It is quite a simple context
> 
> ...



But does USADA have jurisdiction?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> Ah the black and white argument, beloved of so many. In fact my response to Simpson is many layered. Why don't you compare Armstrong and Pantani, contemporaries viewed in entirely different lights.



Once again - why the Armstrong fixation?

All those who cheat should be censured and scorned

Cheating is cheating


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Punishing one person appropriately to set an example isn't accepting the behaviour in others.




Yet we still see the sad hero worship of other cheats

That is what we should be questioning


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> But does USADA have jurisdiction?


Given that the USADA was founded in 1999 and became operational in 2000... and Simpson died in 1967, I suspect not in his case


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Once again - why the Armstrong fixation?
> 
> All those who cheat should be censured and scorned
> 
> Cheating is cheating


Simpson was of his time. Cycling in a time which was only just beginning to have drug tests, the first one in the tour was 1966 against a background of 30 years of open usage of preparations. His death was seminal in the setting up of drug controls around the world. It was also tragic. Amphetamines, dehydration, alchohol and their effects were poorly understood. You think we'd no better now and yet amphetamines were only banned from American baseball in 2005.

Armstrong is entirely different, he stands out from all other dopers for the sheer scale of his deception and the lengths he went to conceal it. There's no comparison between him and Simpson. There is no fixation either, the sport has moved on and so have I. Like Simpson, I view him in a historical context now.


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Once again - why the Armstrong fixation?
> 
> All those who cheat should be censured and scorned
> 
> Cheating is cheating


Crackle, why are you so fixated with Armstrong?
Why don't you ever post about all the other dopers, the TdF, the T de Suisse, the T of Qatar, the Cookson Chronicles, the women's pro-tour....blah blah blah....
...oh, hang on a minute - my mistake - you do. Maybe it's some other bloke I was thinking of, who only ever pops out of the woodwork when Sir Lancelot is mentioned.


----------



## User269 (12 Jul 2014)




----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Crackle, why are you so fixated with Armstrong?
> Why don't you ever post about all the other dopers, the TdF, the T de Suisse, the T of Qatar, the Cookson Chronicles, the women's pro-tour....blah blah blah....
> ...oh, hang on a minute - my mistake - you do. Maybe it's some other bloke I was thinking of, who only ever pops out of the woodwork when Sir Lancelot is mentioned.


Which nicely avoid the points made


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Which nicely avoid the points made


They were dealt with years back. Move on.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

I knew you wouldn't answer - point made.


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I knew you wouldn't answer - point made.


I answered the last time you started trolling, and the time before that, and the time before that.....


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

2 people have voted no


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> I answered the last time you started trolling, and the time before that, and the time before that.....



So the courtesy of answering other posters you now consider trolling?

All I can say really is that you genuinely believe this bizarre claim then you need to act upon it

You either need to back up your claim and report this thread to the moderators

... or apologise

Edited:

Don't bother with an apology, let your failure to report to the moderators speak for itself


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3176238, member: 30090"]Cunobelin, look at this differently, what did Simpson do off the bike and what did Armstrong do off the bike?

The answer to this is why Armstrong is hated by almost everyone and Simpson is not despite both off them doping.[/QUOTE]

The point that was raised (and replied to) was whether at some point in the future Armstrong's image would be "cleansed" and some recognition given (The Armstrong Lie)

This is what happened with Simpson.. he is now venerated despite being a cheat, and that is the point that seems so unwelcome in some quarters.....


Equally take the post The Armstrong Lie where Simpson is excused as being "of his time"

Given the increased financial gain, pressure to increasingly perform, the corporate corruption and other driving factors, in 15 - 20 years will today's doper's simply be seen as "of their time"

Will Virenque, Landis, Ullrich and others be "forgiven" in the same way Simpson has been?

Armstrong is different in that he may (arguably) in the early days a "victim" of the process, but any justification or sympathy has been stripped away when he became one of the organisers and principal perpetrators. That does separate him out, but what we must not do is to let the Armstrong saga overshadow the real problems of the dopers in the peloton

As above, ALL cheating and ALL use of performance enhancing drugs should be unacceptable.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Will Virenque, Landis, Ullrich and others be "forgiven" in the same way Simpson has been?
> 
> Armstrong is different in that he may (arguably) in the early days a "victim" of the process, but any justification or sympathy has been stripped away when he became one of the organisers and principal perpetrators. That does separate him out, but what we must not do is to let the Armstrong saga overshadow the real problems of the dopers in the peloton
> 
> As above, ALL cheating and ALL use of performance enhancing drugs should be unacceptable.



I think you'll find many threads in this section giving a fairly clear view that doping is not accepted nor forgiven. 
I don't know why you think otherwise.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)




----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

I don't think the memorial was funded and erected as a result of the actions of anyone on CycleChat


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

User said:


> More to the point, it is possible to commemorate the tragic, and substantially self inflicted, death of Tom Simpson without in any way condoning any form of cheating.



Indeed.


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The point that was raised (and replied to) was whether at some point in the future Armstrong's image would be "cleansed" and some recognition given (The Armstrong Lie)
> 
> This is what happened with Simpson.. he is now venerated despite being a cheat, and that is the point that seems so unwelcome in some quarters.....
> 
> ...


Your point about Simpson isn't unwelcome it's simply wrong. When Simpson started on drugs they weren't even banned or tested for. You can go all the way back to the Greeks for 'preparation'. Over the hundred years of the Tour you'd have a pretty long list on your one man placard. Adrian already said what I was going to say and it's perfectly possible to hold several different views of someone without them being contradictory. If I ever cycle up Ventoux I may just stop at the Simpson memorial for my own reasons.

Armstrong's history is not yet complete. It may well be that people find some positives from it, I doubt very much he'll be venerated in some way and I note you ignored the more complex issue of Pantani.


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> . If I ever cycle up Ventoux ...
> 
> .


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


>



Or at the moment… . If I ever cycle… ..


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> Your point about Simpson isn't unwelcome it's simply wrong. When Simpson started on drugs they weren't even banned or tested for.



I think you will find that this is an error, and that I am not wrong.


Simpson died in 1967, and the ban on the use of amphetamines was brought in two years previously in 1June 1965

Formal testing was introduced in 1966 and IIRC Raymond Poulidor gained the distinction of undergoing the first drugs test.

So far from not being banned, or tested for, at the time of Simpson's death the adverse effects were fully known, the decision had been made to ban, the ban had been brought into efffect and tests were in place.

He was unequivocally using banned substances to enhance his performance.


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I think you will find that this is an error, and that I am not wrong.
> 
> 
> Simpson died in 1967, and the ban on the use of amphetamines was brought in two years previously in 1June 1965
> ...


I said when he started and you won't find the answer on Wiki.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> *When Simpson started on drugs* they weren't even banned or tested for.





Cunobelin said:


> I think you will find that this is an error, and that I am not wrong.
> *Simpson died in 1967*, and *the ban on the use of amphetamines was brought in two years previously* in 1June 1965



You are both correct. 

A coconut to each of you.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Betsy andreau hurts my soul.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> I said when he started and you won't find the answer on Wiki.



I admire your faith in Wiki, but you really need to look further, and triangulate your answers.

There are far better and more detailed sites on these matters


----------



## raindog (12 Jul 2014)

Just watched Oil City for the first time for ages, and it just seems to make all this seem so.....irrelevant


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I admire your faith in Wiki, but you really need to look further, and triangulate your answers.
> 
> There are far better and more detailed sites on these matters


Did Wiki tell you that?
Did they say whether USADA had jurisdiction too?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Did Wiki tell you that?
> Did they say whether USADA had jurisdiction too?




Good to see another valuable contribution to the debate.

Have you reported your absurd claims about trolling to the moderators yet?


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Good to see another valuable contribution to the debate.
> 
> Have you reported your absurd claims about trolling to the moderators yet?


Avoiding the question again, I see.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

If you can't get along, can't you both just ignore one another?!?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

A third person has voted no. Who are these loonies?


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> If you can't get along, can't you both just ignore one another?!?


 keep it out it louch...we all know you love a bit of Lance


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> A third person has voted no. Who are these loonies?


 @Louch


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Betsy andreau hurts my soul.


 and what has she done wrong?


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

tug benson said:


> and what has she done wrong?


She's just the nippiest of nippy Sweets. does my nut in how obsessed with Armstrong she is. If dopings that offensive to her, why did she not get a divorce? And I haven't voted yet ......


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Avoiding the question again, I see.





rich p said:


> Did Wiki tell you that?



You appear to have missed my original reply, so just to assist you I will link to it.... (The Armstrong Lie)




rich p said:


> Did they say whether USADA had jurisdiction too?



Again, as you appear to have either missed the reply - I will link to it: The Armstrong Lie


Now what is really ironic is that you were asked where you are with your bizarre allegations about trolling and your complaint to the moderators?

Your reply was:



rich p said:


> Avoiding the question again, I see.




I assume that you are and that it can also be presumed that you have realised they were unsubstantiated and failed to report as a result?


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> She's just the nippiest of nippy Sweets. does my nut in how obsessed with Armstrong she is. If dopings that offensive to her, why did she not get a divorce? And I haven't voted yet ......


 Maybe with what armstrong said about her it got personal and she wouldnt drop it like armstrong hoped she would...she isnt the bad person in all this and you seem to think she is..


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Betsy Andreu is great, high morals and not one to be bullied by Armstrong - she rocks!


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> You appear to have missed my original reply, so just to assist you I will link to it.... (The Armstrong Lie)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be brutally honest, I just have fun trying to translate your replies into English.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Going mainstream with what someone says to their dr when you are in that meeting, that's what gets me about her. She made the first move with coming clean to walsh, if she wasn't prepared or the fallout, then she's not as clever as she paints herself. All her testimonies come across to me as jealousy that lance was more successfull than Frankie. That I find her unlikeable, and questIon her, Walsh and kimmages motives, doesn't mean I find lance innocent.


----------



## rich p (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> If you can't get along, can't you both just ignore one another?!?


Point taken - I've wrung as much fun out of his tripe as I can. I'll give it a rest, my apologies!


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

tug benson said:


> Maybe with what Armstrong said about her it got personal and she wouldnt drop it like armstrong hoped she would...she isnt the bad person in all this and you seem to think she is..



I think that one of the problems was there were a number of factors that stopped people coming forward. Whether that was genuine fear, misplaced loyalty to others, or concern over the result of testifying, She had a friendship with Armstrong 

Some reports make her the force behind Frankie Andreu's testimony about doping, and once Armstrong then rounded on them, she stood up and fought

At times she may have been a victim, she may have been an accomplice, and also one of the key figures in Armstrong's downfall

Decide for yourselves where she should be placed


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I think that one of the problems was there were a number of factors that stopped people coming forward. Whether that was genuine fear, misplaced loyalty to others, or concern over the result of testifying, She had a friendship with Armstrong
> 
> Some reports make her the force behind Frankie Andreu's testimony about doping, and once Armstrong then rounded on them, she stood up and fought
> 
> ...


 on the good side


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Point taken - I've wrung as much fun out of his tripe as I can. I'll give it a rest, my apologies!



Before you go....

Whilst I realise that your normal stance is that anyone who does not agree with your agenda is trolling....

Could you at least have the courtesy to let us know where the report to the moderators abut "trolling" is, or have you finally recognised how absurd your unfounded accusations were and backed down?


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Going mainstream with what someone says to their dr when you are in that meeting, that's what gets me about her. She made the first move with coming clean to walsh, if she wasn't prepared or the fallout, then she's not as clever as she paints herself. All her testimonies come across to me as jealousy that lance was more successfull than Frankie. That I find her unlikeable, and questIon her, Walsh and kimmages motives, doesn't mean I* find lance innocent*.


 good becuase he isnt


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Before you go....
> 
> Could you at least have the courtesy to let us know where the report to the moderators abut "trolling" is, or have you finally recognised how absurd it was?


Give it arest please or I will report. Take it to pm if you have to contest it.


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Before you go....
> 
> Whilst I realise that your normal stance is that anyone who does not agree with your agenda is trolling....
> 
> Could you at least have the courtesy to let us know where the report to the moderators abut "trolling" is, or have you finally recognised how absurd your unfounded accusations were and backed down?


 Now you're trolling


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Going mainstream with what someone says to their dr when you are in that meeting, that's what gets me about her. She made the first move with coming clean to walsh, if she wasn't prepared or the fallout, then she's not as clever as she paints herself. All her testimonies come across to me as jealousy that lance was more successfull than Frankie. That I find her unlikeable, and questIon her, Walsh and kimmages motives, doesn't mean I find lance innocent.



Seriously? that's why you think she did it? Jeezo.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

tug benson said:


> good becuase he isnt


neither is she. She kept quiet until Frankie lost his contract. She didn't mind his epo use when the cheques where falling through the door. Team sky have right approach, all those involved in doping have no innocence,


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Give it arest please or I will report. Take it to pm if you have to contest it.



I am quite happy to let it rest that the petty trolling accusation was unfounded and hence no complaint, or reply.


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> neither is she. She kept quiet until Frankie lost his contract. She didn't mind his epo use when the cheques where falling through the door. Team sky have right approach, all those involved in doping have no innocence,


 from what i can remember from the books didn`t betsy find out about frankie doping and made him stop as soon as she found out?...maybe if lance didnt go on the attack as much as he did and try and ruin inncent folk others wouldnt have to speak out about him..and lets not forget lance ruined innocent folk


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> neither is she. She kept quiet until Frankie lost his contract. She didn't mind his epo use when the cheques where falling through the door. Team sky have right approach, all those involved in doping have no innocence,


 betsy is innocent


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I am quite happy to let it rest that the petty trolling accusation was unfounded and hence no complaint, or reply.



Others have replied to you covering your points, it's not a 2-person thread. I'm quite happy to engage with you re this - few here excuse doping. We do, however, contextualise it. If you search the forum you'll see many discussions on doping and almost universal agreement that it is not acceptable (with a few exceptions from posters who accept it as part of the sport).


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

tug benson said:


> betsy is innocent


Need to change your name on here to tug betsy. His big turn on the front was after they got married, he finished about 130th in the tour and contract wasn't renewed. She went after lance for his celebrity in my opinion. And as the wife of a drug using cyclist,she isn't innocent.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> neither is she. She kept quiet until Frankie lost his contract. She didn't mind his epo use when the cheques where falling through the door. Team sky have right approach, all those involved in doping have no innocence,



I agree to a certain extent, but this is again where we need to be careful.

She claims to have been innocent and believed his declarations that he was clean, she found that he doped in 1999, but after her intervention was clean in 2000... whic led to his break with Armstrong and USPS. SHe also claims that she started talking to David Walsh after Frankie's 1999 confession to her

_*IF *_that is true then that is another vote in her favour

However how much is spin and hype?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

I'm 100% sure that Betsy's stance has nothing to do with spin and hype.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> I'm 100% sure that Betsy's stance has nothing to do with spin and hype.


What do you believe her motives where?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> I'm 100% sure that Betsy's stance has nothing to do with spin and hype.



It has to be.....

She is using to spin and hype to get credibility and hence validate her stance, and evidence

The Armstrong camp is using spin and hyped to discredit her and hence invalidate her stance and evidence

As above make up your own minds, and it appears that you have


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> What do you believe her motives where?


 Lance being a dick and trying to ruin innocent people?


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Need to change your name on here to tug betsy. His big turn on the front was after they got married, he finished about 130th in the tour and contract wasn't renewed. She went after lance for his celebrity in my opinion. And as the wife of a drug using cyclist,she isn't innocent.


 was he ever going to win the tour in a team with Lance armstrong?


for he celebrity, all he done was ruin her life, she could have walked away but she didnt and am glad she never


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Who was he ruining before la confidential?


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Anybody that got in his way...stop being naive


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

And I disagree re running her life, she wouldn't be a fraction as famous without her Armstrong connections. She has done very nicely from it all. You have to take the American obsession with becoming a celebrity into consideration when considering their actions. she didn't do it as a crusader, she started the fight, Armstrong had more power.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

tug benson said:


> Anybody that got in his way...stop being naive


name names then? I'm not sayi g I know everything on the subject, but I don't know of anyone before that he ruined in your eyes.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

No nAmes come to mind to share then?


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

You don't think she enjoys the celebrity she has ? She certainly seems far more keen to be involved in discussing it than Frankie who in any interview I have seem comes across really forced.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Betsy Andrea did not set out to be famous.
And if you don't know who Armstrong ruined then you will have little credibility in a thread where you try to defend him without knowing these things.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

I know who who he went after after the accusations where made against him. 

I have asked for who he ruined before hand. No names are being given. 

Betsy loved the celebrity she gained,Walsh even discusses in his book how giddy she got giving him the inside scoop.he fuelled that and got what he wanted. 

Why did betsy, Walsh and kimmage not focus attention on anyone bar Armstrong in their selfless quest to free cycling from drug abuse? Because no one cared about any other cyclist at that time in the English speaking world .


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Actually, I can't believe there's someone trying to defend Armstrong. It's 2014, the evidence is out there. Done and dusted.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Why did betsy, Walsh and kimmage not focus attention on anyone bar Armstrong in their selfless quest to free cycling from drug abuse? Because no one cared about any other cyclist at that time in the English speaking world .



Are you serious?
Like seriously serious? 
And not on the wind-up?


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Im not defending him. I'm just questioning their reasons for going after him specifically.massive difference. So many others they could have outed without as big a ring fence around them of secrecy if they wanted to clean up cycling. Seems strange to me they picked the biggest fight first.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3176833, member: 30090"]Basson.[/QUOTE]

Just started reading his book this week.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Seems strange to me they picked the biggest fight first.


It would be stranger not to.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3176833, member: 30090"]Bassons.[/QUOTE]
Was a doper. Not innocent.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Was a doper. Not innocent.



Give over.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> It would be stranger not to.


No it doesn't. They kept hitting brick walls, why not take a step back and take it down brick by brick? But no one in us or uk would have cared if they outed anyone bar Armstrong then would they?


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Was a doper. Not innocent.


 did he?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> No it doesn't. They kept hitting brick walls, why not take a step back and take it down brick by brick? But no one in us or uk would have cared if they outed anyone bar Armstrong then would they?



You really don't understand Armstrong's role, nor the mindset of investigative journalists, if that's what you think. I don't agree with Kimmage in all his methods, but Walsh and Betsy Andreu are above reproach in my opinion. Andreu did not ask to be involved but she was strong enough to decide she had to.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

tug benson said:


> did he?



No.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

She was asked, she could have no to Walsh. She didn't,


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> She was asked, she could have no to Walsh. She didn't,



And for that we need to be thankful.


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Have mixed up simeoni and bassoons, my apologies,


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Because at 1130 at night I mixed up two names? Get over yourself. Get a grip that I'm not defending lance. Then you might get it.


----------



## tug benson (12 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Because at 1130 at night I mixed up two names? Get over yourself. Get a grip that I'm not defending lance. Then you might get it.


 no you are just attacking innocent people


----------



## Louch (12 Jul 2014)

Any more of that and I'll sue


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Because at 1130 at night I mixed up two names?



If you knew what you were on about then you'd not get mixed up. Unless you're on drugs. And then I'd understand your last few posts better


----------



## Louch (13 Jul 2014)

Not on drugs, just tired. You have a case of the Andreus to be throwing such suggestions about without extraordinary proof....,


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> I'm not defending lance.



You're doing a good job of attacking those people that were against him. Which is pretty much the same as defending him in my book.



Louch said:


> Not on drugs, just tired..



Yeh sure, and emotional?


----------



## Louch (13 Jul 2014)

Totally Different to me. I question their motivation, not their end result. I look at these things from the path of least resistance. Them going for the biggest prize, rather than building up to take down Armstrong , in my opinion, makes their motivation more ego driven than it being selfless.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> Totally Different to me. I question their motivation, not their end result. I look at these things from the path of least resistance. Them going for the biggest prize, rather than building up to take down Armstrong , in my opinion, makes their motivation more ego driven than it being selfless.



You clearly have no understanding then if that is your view.


----------



## Louch (13 Jul 2014)

no understanding of what exactly?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> You really don't understand Armstrong's role, nor the mindset of investigative journalists, if that's what you think. I don't agree with Kimmage in all his methods, but Walsh and Betsy Andreu are above reproach in my opinion. Andreu did not ask to be involved but she was strong enough to decide she had to.





Louch said:


> no understanding of what exactly?



As per my previous reply.


----------



## Louch (13 Jul 2014)

then you ignored my reply, where I said Betsy could have said no to Walsh.


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Holy Christ.
I'm expecting to be back in 2014 this morning


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

The other thing that gets missed is that Armstrong was part of a whole new type of "sportsman"

Simpson, and all the generations that followed doped, cheated, evaded and fiddled drugs tests, denied any wrongdoing and covered up..... none of that has changed, and was part of the sport. Cycling was also not unique in this.

What has changed is the rewards

There were no sportsmen earning a billion dollars , no multimillion dollar businesses built on the sporting achievements

This changes the game. With any bigger reward comes bigger pressure to perform, greater pressure to increase your times.

This in turn means that sportsmen will take greater risks to achieve this, have more to protect, and more to lose.

Greater steps will then be taken to prevent exposure.

Armstrong was the most extreme example of this, but how many others are there out there, operating at a lower level, but still operating 

When it was pointed out that Simpson was "of his time", perhaps in this new more aggressive, more corrupt world of sport - Armstrong is also "of his time"

In the same way as Simpson's death was a landmark in the drugs saga, perhaps we should take Armstrong as a turning point as well....


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Holy Christ.



Lived from allegedly 1 AD to about 33 AD, depending on source.......and as far as I am aware had no connection to pro-cycling


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I really don't understand what you want here. Do you feel that Simpson should be posthumously banned? That Armstrong should be treated more leniently?



Neither....

I do have issues with the way that Simpson is excused for his sins and idolised by some and that pointing out he was a cheat is unpopular, and seen as "trolling" simply because it is off a closed agenda.

However a posthumous ban is not going to achieve anything, and lessons were learnt, this is something that we need to do now.

As for Armstrong, I have no desire for leniency, however the view of him as some sort of unique hyper-villian clouds a lot of other issues.

We need to learn what happened and apply this to the future to stop it happening again, and that means investigating an awful lot deeper than Armstrong


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Louch said:


> then you ignored my reply, where I said Betsy could have said no to Walsh.





Marmion said:


> And for that we need to be thankful.



You seem to have missed my reply if you think I ignored your comment.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I don't believe shes telling the whole truth on what she knew and what went on and how invovled she was...



Are you suggesting she was "involved" in doping? And that she was/is involved in a "cover up"? <looks for dis-belief smiley>  <that'll do, cos it's complete wacko to think either of those>


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Armstrong was the most extreme example of this, but how many others are there out there, operating at a lower level, but still operating



Well, if Armstrong would co-operate we might find out. 
There are many dopers who have been banned (as recently as 3 days ago Menchov was banned and stripped of some wins) so I still can't understand why you think people are focussing too much on Armstrong to the detriment of the drive to catch dopers. As you rightly say Armstrong was (perhaps?) the most extreme, so he needs to be a pivotal player in the resolution.


----------



## Kins (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> As for Armstrong, I have no desire for leniency, however the view of him as some sort of unique hyper-villian clouds a lot of other issues.



He was worse than a simple doper because of the way he treated journalists, people, teammates, sponsors etc. The way he systematically degraded people was the worst. If he had just doped and been a "stand up guy" he would have been just another secumbed to the pressure of the era of performance enhancing drugs.

One of the worst things in my mind was the way he treated Le Monde. I don't know how Le Monde coped with it at the time. Must have been awful.


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

This thread may be enlightening as to Cunobellin's fixation
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/should-tom-simpson-be-striped-of-his-titles.106619/page-2

@Marmion and @Cunobelin 
http://www.dopeology.org/people/list/by:default|order:asc|batch:20|page:1/
51 pages of people who have been fingered


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Here's my post from July 2012

_I really don't know why I'm doing this!
Every account I've seen about Tommy Simpson, from all the books and articles I've read, to Wikipedia, give Simpson's amphetamine abuse large negative coverage. Of course it would have been better if he hadn't taken them and he might still be alive if he hadn't done so. 
The trouble I'm having is your linking of a dead cyclist from the 60s to a currently competing athlete.
If you ever posted or read the plethora of anti-drug threads over the past number of years in the Racing section you'd appreciate that the regular posters are consistently anti-doping whomsoever is the miscreant. The misapprehension that we only want Armstrong to receive his due desserts is common among people who rarely post in the Racing section. 
What you fail to understand, either by refusing to read the background or wilful trolling, is that to conflate amphetamine abuse 50 years ago bears no relation to the alleged USPostal systematic blood-doping programme.
It's tantamont to conflating a kid stealing some sweets to Brinksmat.
So, yes, Simpson took drugs which were generally regarded as a slap-on-the wrist punishment._

God knows why he thinks I'm condoning Simpson's doping
_
_
*THIS WAS NOT A GOOD THING - JUST SAY NO!!*


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

Kins said:


> He was worse than a simple doper because of the way he treated journalists, people, teammates, sponsors etc. The way he systematically degraded people was the worst. If he had just doped and been a "stand up guy" he would have been just another secumbed to the pressure of the era of performance enhancing drugs.
> 
> One of the worst things in my mind was the way he treated Le Monde. I don't know how Le Monde coped with it at the time. Must have been awful.



He wa without doubt the worst, but is he the only one?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> Well, if Armstrong would co-operate we might find out.
> There are many dopers who have been banned (as recently as 3 days ago Menchov was banned and stripped of some wins) so I still can't understand why you think people are focussing too much on Armstrong to the detriment of the drive to catch dopers. As you rightly say Armstrong was (perhaps?) the most extreme, so he needs to be a pivotal player in the resolution.



The individual dopers are being found (as will always be the case), but from the Festina, Armstrong and other cases we need to look deeper into this.

Why are they doping
Is there pressure still being applied
Is there still an organisational "force" that has been left untouched.

Armstrong needs to come clean, but the nature of Socioptahs means that it is unlikely that he will do so, but what has happened to all the organisations that enabled him, the drug provides and their ilk?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> He wa without doubt the worst, but is he the only one?



Jeezo, do you just read every 5th reply or something? Plenty have answered this one for you - you seem very good at avoiding responding to posters who cover your "issues" and deflecting back to the same point which has already been more than adequately answered.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ...but what has happened to all the organisations that enabled him, the drug provides and their ilk?



Do you not keep up with these things? 
Name a name and I can direct you in the right direction. 
And if the names are not "out there" it is in partly due to Armstrong not naming them.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> Jeezo, do you just read every 5th reply or something? Plenty have answered this one for you - you seem very good at avoiding responding to posters who cover your "issues" and deflecting back to the same point which has already been more than adequately answered.



You made two points and asked a question.......they were answered


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> Do you not keep up with these things?
> Name a name and I can direct you in the right direction.
> And if the names are not "out there" it is in partly due to Armstrong not naming them.



Thank you for answering my point...... we do not know all the details of Armstrong's network.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ...they were answered



If only you accepted this. 

I have no idea what point you are trying to make anymore.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Thank you for answering my point...... we do not know all the details of Armstrong's network.



Is that your point? I agree.


----------



## Crackle (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> involved means many things as you well know, she knew about her husband and said nothing allowed him to carry on taking while part of the team, the story given in the documentaries was nonsense, it was credibility building for herself...


Is one interpretation, it isn't mine.

I don't generally know where all this is going. Examining the motivations of why people did it and making interpretations from that is not a simple case of black and white. It also need to be taken in the context of the moment and not the context of now. For instance, I've got less and less time for Kimmage but it doesn't mean I value any less his part in exposing Armstrong.


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> He wa without doubt the worst, but is he the only one?


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DID YOU READ THIS???????
http://www.dopeology.org/people/list/by:default|order:asc|batch:20|page:1/


----------



## Crackle (13 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DID YOU READ THIS???????
> http://www.dopeology.org/people/list/by:default|order:asc|batch:20|page:1/


He's not going to like that. Simpson isn't listed.


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> He's not going to like that. Simpson isn't listed.



Never failed a test - and post mortem's don't count!


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DID YOU READ THIS???????
> http://www.dopeology.org/people/list/by:default|order:asc|batch:20|page:1/





Crackle said:


> He's not going to like that. Simpson isn't listed.



Could that be because it is limited from 1980 to the present?

It clearly states this at the title!

I realised that and saw that, how did you miss it?


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Could that be because it is limited from 1980 to the present?
> 
> It clearly states this at the title!
> 
> I realised that and saw that, how did you miss it?


...and he didn't fail a test!


----------



## Crackle (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Could that be because it is limited from 1980 to the present?
> 
> It clearly states this at the title!
> 
> I realised that and saw that, how did you miss it?


I didn't miss it. You can figure the rest out.


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> I didn't miss it. You can figure the rest out.


I doubt he can


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Never failed a test - and post mortem's don't count!



Worrying - you seem unaware that others seem to think they do.

Death of Knud Enemark Jensen

His use of amphetamines in 1960 was proven by autopsy, and the WADA quotes this as being a pivotal point in the introduction of drug testing in the Olympics



> The death of Danish cyclist Knud Enemark Jensen during competition at the Olympic Games in Rome 1960 (the autopsy revealed traces of amphetamine) increased the pressure for sports authorities to introduce drug testing.




However if you wish to think post-mortem plays no part in the investigation of the use of drugs and "don't count" - feel free


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

???????

Was posting a list of riders from 1980 onwards and commenting that Simpson wasn't lists some kind of test?


Crackle said:


> I didn't miss it. You can figure the rest out.



Apparently it is some kind of test..... and according to RichP- you passed



rich p said:


> ...and he didn't fail a test!


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ???????
> 
> Was posting a list of riders from 1980 onwards and commenting that Simpson wasn't lists some kind of test?
> 
> ...


BTW, did you read post #191?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> there's quite a few on the list that never failed a doping test....



Because there are a multiple number of ways of avoiding a positive result...

Some of the "excuses" are themselves worth a smile..



> *Tyler Hamilton, cyclist*
> *Drug:* Oxygen-rich blood transfusion
> *Explanation:* When The the US Anti-Doping Agency detected someone else's red blood cells in Hamilton's blood, the road racer blood had an imaginative excuse. He claimed that the cells belonged to a "vanishing twin" who died in the womb – an explanation considered theoretically possible but unlikely by medical experts. Sporting authorities were sceptical; the transfusion of blood containing high levels of oxygen-carrying red cells is known to increase athletic performance.
> 
> *Result: *Despite the "blood doping" allegations Hamilton was allowed to keep his 2004 Olympic medal because his second sample was untestable after being damaged in the laboratory. But he was banned for two years in 2005 after a second positive test.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> BTW, did you read post #191?



...and this one, which his still without a reply The Armstrong Lie


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ...and this one, which his still without a reply The Armstrong Lie



Are you trying to make a point or just have a squabble?
I really am at a loss as to what your point is, was or might be.


----------



## Dogtrousers (13 Jul 2014)

I saw Lance Armstrong in Tesco in Catford yesterday.

That's an Armstrong lie btw


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> Are you trying to make a point or just have a squabble?
> I really am at a loss as to what your point is, was or might be.



Again.. it is a simple reply to a post, addressing the question asked.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Again.. it is a simple reply to a post, addressing the question asked.



What is your point tho? I'm sure there is one, I just can't see what it is.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> What is your point tho? I'm sure there is one, I just can't see what it is.



The point was to anwser the question that RichP asked......


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The point was to anwser the question that RichP asked......


Eh, WTF are you on about? What question did I ask?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The point was to anwser the question that RichP asked......



Is there a wider point than squabbling with rich p?
You must have started off trying to make one, and I can't work out what it was.
The best I can come up with is that you thought everyone else was trying to excuse all other dopers by focussing on Armstrong, and that has been disproved. Nobody is excusing dopers. Simpson included.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Eh, WTF are you on about? What question did I ask?



Let me remind you..

The Armstrong Lie


----------



## Louch (13 Jul 2014)

Did you two not agree to ignore one another last night?


----------



## uclown2002 (13 Jul 2014)

View: http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y


----------



## Louch (13 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3177526, member: 30090"][Adrian, post: 3177521, member: 1252"]Ask the person holding that gun to your head if they might consider letting you off reading it?[/QUOTE]

That's not the point and you know it.[/QUOTE]
It really is, you said last night you weren't replying, but here you are. Leave us to our debating!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

Some former Tour winners think Armstrong should have his Tour titles given back:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/former-tour-de-france-winners-say-give-armstrong-his-victories

I'm glad some, including Froomedog, Wiggins and Cuddles were clear that he should not. 

Stephen Roche (a known EPO user, who is now a "cycling politician") reckons that Armstrong should stay on that list: 1987 Tour de France winner Stephen Roche added. "In the 100 year history of the race you can't not have a winner for seven years. Doping has been part of sport, not only for cycling, for decades."

Well gee, thanks you twat. Nobbers like him need to get the f*ck out of cycling. And stop worrying about whether cyclists look smart and zip their tops up.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2014)

Rehabilitation has been accepted for a number of professionals over the years.

The question is whether a few vitriolic individuals will outweigh a powerful organised campaign.

There are professional cyclists who for whatever reason are against the removal of titles, perhaps because of a fear for their own?

Then there is the Esquire article,  that reaches a wider non-cycling audience


The original unpopular question remains....

Is there a chance the Armstrong may become rehabilitated?


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The original unpopular question remains....
> 
> Is there a chance the Armstrong may become rehabilitated?


Well, the blindingly obvious answer is that, of course, there's a chance. Perhaps you should rephrase the question.


----------



## tigger (16 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Is there a chance the Armstrong may become rehabilitated?



From what you've seen and read about him, what do you think?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> ...at the end of the day who really gives a shiite...



Roche sees himself as a "cycling politician" and still has influence, all the rest who passed comment (as far as I know) in favour of him being re-instated have gone out to grass. I'm not surprised, but the likes of Roche should have no place in cycling.


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

Fat-face Roche is a dick


----------



## Dave Davenport (16 Jul 2014)

Believed you the first time Rich


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Fat-face Roche is a dick



Intelligent debate is not dead then?


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2014)

tigger said:


> From what you've seen and read about him, what do you think?



It has certainly worked for others.

It will be interesting to see how the various sides play out.

However the real interest from my point of view is how this would change the attitude of others.

IF Armstrong is rehabilitated, given his history, where does that leave the lesser offenders?


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Intelligent debate is not dead then?


How on earth would you know?


----------



## tigger (16 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> Fat-face Roche is a dick



In fairness Rich I think he's a Fat-face cock


----------



## tigger (16 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> It has certainly worked for others.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the various sides play out.
> 
> ...


Ok I'll answer that for you. He's clearly incapable of anything other than PR rehabilitation


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> yet David Miller is a good old chap, who many here think should be more involved in the governing body of cycling, strange...
> Roche suspected doper whooooo, the shock horror, rertired since the 1990's, doesn't mean there isn't a place in the sport for him, he just might have something to offer, actually he just might have a lot to offer...


He's proved himself to be a laughing stock with most of his suggestions to improve pro-cycling. He should really step aside and stop embarrassing himself


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

I think the flag in your avatar is maybe having a bit too much influence here Irish, it seems to be obscuring your view


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> yet David Miller is a good old chap, who many here think should be more involved in the governing body of cycling, strange...
> Roche suspected doper whooooo, the shock horror, retired since the 1990's, doesn't mean there isn't a place in the sport for him, he just might have something to offer, actually he just might have a lot to offer...



He might if he stops defending dopers. Millar has shown it can be done to come in from the cold...but it requires a change. Roche is banging the same old písh from the "bad old days"


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Suggestions are exactly what they are, some good, some bad, isn't that how things generally work... not sure what you expect him to do..


I expect him to take his prehistoric, laughable old school ideas out of the arena.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> of course it is, how silly of me, us Irish should really just be sheep and just agree with everything wrote on CC...



It does look like you think anything said against a fellow countryman is an attack on your country. You got issues with being Irish, Irish? If so, take it out on the English...


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> or just maybe he can see the hypocrisy or utter nonsense in pretending no one won those TDF's



Unlikely, if he can't understand it like Froomedog, Wiggins and Cuddles did then he's stuck in the past and has no place in modern cycling.

I'd say exactly the same about Indurain if he got involved in modern cycling politics. And others.


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> or just maybe he can see the hypocrisy or utter nonsense in pretending no one won those TDF's


Nobody won them cos they all cheated.
The space in the record books is a salutary reminder that it was a tainted period. Glossing over it by awarding it to the next doper in line who didn't get caught, or keeping the doper who won it as winner misses the point quite spectacularly


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> hold on a minute you mentioned me being Irish was a reason for defending Roche, the problem is clearly your...



Aye, and you rose to it


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> but as I've stated you have named riders who clearly have to say whats expected, who knows what they really think..



We can only go on what people say and/or do - maybe Roche doesn't really think what he is saying either?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> that doesn't really make sense....



Maybe Roche is only saying what he is saying because that's what he thinks people expect him to say; maybe he hates Armstrong and other dopers?


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> so what about the rest, lets just leave them as winners or do we gloss over them..I think an asterisk and a subnote would work, at the end of the day a scumbag doper beat other scumbag dopers but the race was run and won, pretending otherwise seems pointless...


I'm sorry mate, I really cba to do this argument again.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

User said:


> ok thats cleared that up nicely, no wait still doesn't make sense...



I was using your train of thought from earlier. Wiggins et al are only saying what they are saying because that's what expected of them, so we don't really know what they really think; likewise, Roche is only saying what he is saying because that's what's expected of him.

Glad you acknowledge it making no sense


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2014)

tigger said:


> Ok I'll answer that for you. He's clearly incapable of anything other than PR rehabilitation



No you haven't, you have answered for YOU..


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2014)

rich p said:


> How on earth would you know?



I see personal insults are still the pinnacle of your contribution.... the evidence stands for itself.

All that needs to be said really


----------



## rich p (16 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> .
> 
> All that needs to be said really


Phew, close the thread!


----------



## cd365 (18 Jul 2014)

It appears he has met with doping investigators http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/28362016


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2014)

cd365 said:


> It appears he has met with doping investigators http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/28362016



Armstrong remains a shrewd operator who is capable of twisting this to his own ends....

There are lots of hints that the present ban and other censure could be reduced.

Just because it hasn't been asked for yet, does not mean it wont........


----------



## Ganymede (18 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Armstrong remains a shrewd operator who is capable of twisting this to his own ends....
> 
> There are lots of hints that the present ban and other censure could be reduced.
> 
> Just because it hasn't been asked for yet, does not mean it wont........


Exactly what I thought. He could easily turn himself into some sort of anti-doping tsar, he's a natural crusader for himself.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2014)

Trouble is how far can you isolate him?


Public opinion has always been fickle, and the US always love a tainted hero who learns from their mistakes and makes a comeback

With the present atmosphere, it is possible that he will come across in a way that he will appear the victim of a handful of rabid vitriolic individuals


----------



## Ganymede (19 Jul 2014)

User said:


> the problem is they've been asking him from day 1 to tell what he knows and to be fair he knows a lot that would interest them, the way I see it if they don't ask him then they would be perceived as not wanting to find out the whole truth, bit of damned if they do - damned if they don't....


Yeah but they can ask him without a camera on him. That would stymie the Armstrong PR.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2014)

Ganymede said:


> Yeah but they can ask him without a camera on him. That would stymie the Armstrong PR.



Would it..... the meeting in the article was low key, no publicity and no real content, yet is making international news.


----------



## Ganymede (19 Jul 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Would it..... the meeting in the article was low key, no publicity and no real content, yet is making international news.


Yeah. I know. A girl can hope but there are always effin press releases, aren't there. *sigh*


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Jul 2014)

Ganymede said:


> Yeah. I know. A girl can hope but there are always effin press releases, aren't there. *sigh*



Not if it's the UCI and a rider is banned.


----------



## Hont (5 Aug 2014)

Really sorry to bring this thread back to the top again (*runs away ducking*), but I only just got around to watching the film today. I agree with the OP about the coherent narrative etc.

Knowing most of the details beforehand I can say that the only eye-opener for me was Brunyeel's reaction to Contador's attack when Kloden got dropped. I remember Contador being asked afterwards whether he thought Brunyeel wanted him to win and replying "that's a good question." Easy to see why.

Oh and Armstrong getting Frankie to do all of the US 2009 interviews....jeez what a c***.


----------



## Crackle (20 Aug 2014)

[QUOTE 3238929, member: 45"]The poor love.

Please, don't buy his book.[/QUOTE]
Do you think it'll blow the whistle on Hein or any of those who have still kept his faith: No chance. He needs to make money, so it's still bullshit.


----------



## cd365 (20 Aug 2014)

He is a victim, a victim of being caught out!


----------



## Supersuperleeds (20 Aug 2014)

[QUOTE 3238929, member: 45"]The poor love.

Please, don't buy his book.[/QUOTE]

I won't buy it, but I will probably end up reading it


----------



## Hont (20 Aug 2014)

It's going to be the same self-serving sh*te as always. He'll carry on lying about doping during the comeback and disseminating/distorting all the stuff we already know about from the USADA document and Hamilton's book. 

He's produced two books that weren't worth the paper they were written on. Unless he fingers everyone involved (not holding my breath) I don't imagine this will be any different. 

Won't buy it, won't read it.


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 Aug 2014)

I've always been one of those who believed Armstrong doped and was firmly in the Anti-Lance camp, but for all that I can't help having a sneaking admiration for the guy. Since he fessed up he's become one of the people I'd like to have a drink with, I still don't condone what he did but villains never seem so bad after they've been caught. We all have a dark side, it's just a matter of degree as to how bad it is.

I'll buy the book when it comes out.


----------



## AndyRM (20 Aug 2014)

Hont said:


> Unless he fingers everyone involved



50 Shades of Armstrong?


----------



## Hont (20 Aug 2014)

Smokin Joe said:


> Since he fessed up he's become one of the people I'd like to have a drink with, I still don't condone what he did but villains never seem so bad after they've been caught. We all have a dark side, it's just a matter of degree as to how bad it is.
> 
> I'll buy the book when it comes out.


You realise that is exactly what he wants. He's lost all his TDF titles so now he wants to win at PR. If he was genuinely remorseful he would be saying what a weight off his shoulders it was (a la Hamilton, Millar etc), not telling of his regret at being found out.


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 Aug 2014)

Hont said:


> You realise that is exactly what he wants. He's lost all his TDF titles so now he wants to win at PR. If he was genuinely remorseful he would be saying what a weight off his shoulders it was (a la Hamilton, Millar etc), not telling of his regret at being found out.


Of course it's what he wants, no-one wants to go through life as a Pariah. He was a wrong 'un big time and I was glad when it all unravelled for him, but nevertheless he is a complicated and fascinating character with a story to tell and the value of his proposed book will depend on exactly what he does tell.

You have to understand how and why to arm yourself against being caught again in the same fashion.


----------



## Crackle (20 Aug 2014)

Smokin Joe said:


> I've always been one of those who believed Armstrong doped and was firmly in the Anti-Lance camp, but for all that I can't help having a sneaking admiration for the guy. Since he fessed up he's become one of the people I'd like to have a drink with, I still don't condone what he did but villains never seem so bad after they've been caught. We all have a dark side, it's just a matter of degree as to how bad it is.
> 
> I'll buy the book when it comes out.


We look forward to a review of it.


----------



## Hont (20 Aug 2014)

Smokin Joe said:


> You have to understand how and why to arm yourself against being caught again in the same fashion.


Whilst that is certainly true, it does depend on how much he tells and whether he adds anything to the facts that we already now from USADA and Hamilton's book. Incidentally I'd recommend, if you haven't done so already, that you read the USADA reasoned decision first. Not least because it's free and doesn't put cash into the pocket of a cheating bully.



Smokin Joe said:


> he is a complicated and fascinating character


I'm not sure he's that complicated. I think he just wants to win at everything all the time and chooses the tactics to suit that aim. It used to be doping, bullying and intimidation, now it's this "open, honest"* approach to the media. 

I can't imagine that his kids are jumping up and down at the thought of all this flaring up again. Still it's not like he puts himself first.

*94.5% of the people voting on this thread think it's nothing of the sort.


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 Aug 2014)

[QUOTE 3239289, member: 45"]That's easy. Don't cheat.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't referring to how dopers could avoid getting caught, but how the sport itself could get more of an understanding of how to detect and stop it.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

[QUOTE 3239289, member: 45"]That's easy. Don't cheat.[/QUOTE]

There have always been cheats though,

Simpson was one of the first, yet has a cult following and memorials


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> There have always been cheats though,
> 
> Simpson was one of the first, yet has a cult following and memorials



Oh god, someone's woken him up again...


----------



## HF2300 (20 Aug 2014)

Well, he's right on two counts. There has to be totally no bull, and I don't trust this guy with all his bull.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Marmion said:


> Oh god, someone's woken him up again...



Sorry - I forgot that mentioning Simpson was a cheat was unwelcome by some.... rather proving the point


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Sorry - I forgot that mentioning Simpson was a cheat was unwelcome by some.... rather proving the point



We've covered this one so many times already. We acknowledged your point and then moved on. You keep saying that mentioning Simpson proves something, which it does not. You keep going on about it in threads about Armstrong; yet I can't think you contribute to other threads about doping (unless to mention Simpson)


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

I must apologise if you really feel that I have upset your need to censor these discussions.....

As far as I am concerned it is permissible to answer other peoples posts - even if it without your (unneccessary) approval.


----------



## User169 (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Sorry - I forgot that mentioning Simpson was a cheat was unwelcome by some.... rather proving the point



Proving what imaginary point exactly?

Yes, he was a cheat, but that doesn't say anything especially interesting in itself. 

Surely though, you can't really believe that he was "one of the first": unless of course your familiarity with pro racing is truly superficial.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I must apologise if you really feel that I have upset your need to censor these discussions.....
> 
> As far as I am concerned it is permissible to answer other peoples posts - even if it without your (unneccessary) approval.



And no matter how many times you state that I in some way think my opinions count more than anyone's else, there is no substance to your claims. Feel free to continue to just type "simpson blah blah blah" over and over. But expect to get told that it's a load of old bóllocks. That is not censoring, it's my opinion. And that of (almost*) everyone else as far as I can see.

*you excluded...


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Marmion said:


> And no matter how many times you state that I in some way think my opinions count more than anyone's else, there is no substance to your claims. Feel free to continue to just type "simpson blah blah blah" over and over. But expect to get told that it's a load of old bóllocks. That is not censoring, it's my opinion. And that of (almost*) everyone else as far as I can see.
> 
> *you excluded...



Excellent...

Pointing out Simpson was a cheat is Bollocks!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Pointing out Simpson was a cheat is Bollocks!



Okay, fire on yerself...


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> Proving what imaginary point exactly?


The fact that it is an unpopular and inconvenient fact



> Yes, he was a cheat, but that doesn't say anything especially interesting in itself.
> 
> Surely though, you can't really believe that he was "one of the first": unless of course your familiarity with pro racing is truly superficial.



The point is that he was one of the first....

Prior to this time, there was a "grey area" where doping was unequivocally cheating, but not actually banned.

I assume that (with your apparently far superior knowledge) you are aware that these drugs bans only came into place in 1965 and the first tests in teh Tour de France in 1966. In 1967 when Simpson died from illegal performance enhancing drugs, there were few precedents, this to most with a mathematical mind would make him one of the first to contravene and be found out to be cheating under these rules.

So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

User said:


> No it is not bollocks but what of it? It doesn't diminish any of Armstrong's crimes.



It isn't me claiming it is bollocks....


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

User said:


> But what of it? How is Simpson relevant to Armstrong?



Please read The Armstrong Lie


----------



## User169 (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The fact that it is an unpopular and inconvenient fact.



I can't see that anyone disagrees with you, so again not sure what your point is.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

User said:


> I have thanks. Are you suggesting that Armstrong does not deserve his punishment because Simpson wasn't?



That is a little absurd....

Simpson is important in this for two reasons...

1. He was one of the first who was found to be inconclusively cheating following the introduction of rules banning PEDs
2. He shows how a cheat can become rehabilitated to a figure that can become a popular celebrated icon.

Neither in any way suggests anything about Armstrong's punishment, it reflects one possible future if the lessons from the past are not learnt


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> I can't see that anyone disagrees with you, so again not sure what your point is.


Marmion is on record claiming that claims of Simpson cheating are "bollocks"


----------



## User169 (20 Aug 2014)

[QUOTE="Cunobelin, post: 3239900, member: 

Prior to this time, there was a "grey area" where doping was unequivocally cheating, but not actually banned.

I assume that (with your apparently far superior knowledge) you are aware that these drugs bans only came into place in 1965 and the first tests in teh Tour de France in 1966. In 1967 when Simpson died from illegal performance enhancing drugs, there were few precedents, this to most with a mathematical mind would make him one of the first to contravene and be found out to be cheating under these rules.

So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so now you're limiting it to the rules of the TDF which at the time was actually UCI rules. I had understood you to mean cheating in a broader sense. 

However, if you accept the primacy of the dates, you'd then have to concede that substantially all of Simpsons palmeres stands since it was achieved prior to 1966.


----------



## User169 (20 Aug 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> [QUOTE="Cunobelin, post: 3239900, member:
> 
> Prior to this time, there was a "grey area" where doping was unequivocally cheating, but not actually banned.
> 
> ...



Ok, so now you're limiting it to the rules of the TDF which at the time was actually UCI rules. I had understood you to mean cheating in a broader sense.

However, if you accept the primacy of the dates, you'd then have to concede that substantially all of Simpsons palmeres stands since it was achieved prior to 1966.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I edited this whilst @Crackle liked it: hope I don't get called a cheat!


----------



## Crackle (20 Aug 2014)

It still gets a Like.

Most of this stuff from Cunobelin has been refuted umpteen times, I'm just not anal enough to go find the quotes.


----------



## StuAff (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.


Presumbly you forgot to add 'by taking performance enhancing substances' (there's been plenty of cheating by other means...).


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> Will if you accept the primacy of the dates, you'd then have to concede that substantially all of Simpsons palmeres stands since it was achieved prior to 1966.



Different question...

Any athlete who knowingly uses a substance to gain an advantage is cheating.

Lets look at a drug that appeared for the first time in 2012

It is investigated, and becomes banned in 2014.

Any athlete using it after 2014 becomes banned.... was it's use prior to that morally right, or it's use any more acceptable, or was it still cheating?


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

StuAff said:


> Presumbly you forgot to add 'by taking performance enhancing substances' (there's been plenty of cheating by other means...).



Including catching trains!

One of the few that Armstrong is not accused of


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Crackle said:


> It still gets a Like.
> 
> Most of this stuff from Cunobelin has been refuted umpteen times, I'm just not anal enough to go find the quotes.



Does that include the claims that there was no evidence that Simpson cheated..... because the drugs in his pocket were only circumstantial and that Post Mortem examination proof of drugs in his blood was not acceptable as evidence ?

Hardly refuting anything


----------



## StuAff (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Different question...
> 
> Any athlete who knowingly uses a substance to gain an advantage is cheating.
> 
> ...


Of course it's still cheating. And under regular testing, it would still get caught. No longer is there a need to have to have a test for a specific drug, or even for it to be known about by the people doing the testing. The whole point of the biological passport programme is to catch people using anything performance-enhancing, by looking for the effects of the substance, not just the substance itself.


----------



## User169 (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Different question...
> 
> Any athlete who knowingly uses a substance to gain an advantage is cheating.
> 
> ...



Make up your mind! 

One minute you want a cheat defined with reference to rules introduced on1966, the next minute anyone that eats is a cheat.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> Make up your mind!
> 
> One minute you want a cheat defined with reference to rules introduced on1966, the next minute anyone that eats is a cheat.



Not the answer you wanted?

See StuAff's post above - he understood the post.


----------



## StuAff (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Not the answer you wanted?
> 
> See StuAff's post above - he understood the post.


No, I wasn't agreeing with you. I was stating that as it applies _now, _under current regulations and procedures, drug testing no longer needs to detect a particular substance. I utterly disagree with you on the rest. Retrospectively taking titles from riders when tests cannot be carried out, or when those titles were prior to drug regulations being implemented, is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## User169 (20 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Not the answer you wanted?
> 
> See StuAff's post above - he understood the post.



I understand Stuaffs point, but don't see how it fits with your fixation on the 1966 date.


----------



## StuAff (20 Aug 2014)

And I still don't get why he obsesses about Simpson (who, incidentally, *died* with PEDs as a contributing factor- surely a strong moral argument against taking them), yet never mentions Merckx (caught three times), Anquetil (forthright on his own doping), Coppi (ditto), Indurain (almost certainly doped).......
And AFAIK, Simpson never threatened to sue anyone who called him a doper, let alone repeatedly go through with it, never called anyone a whore under oath, never bullied his own team-mates into doping (or sacked those who couldn't/wouldn't dope), never hounded anyone out of the peloton....oh, and though he was doping, he was doping under the regulations and testing regime of the time. If he'd been caught, he'd have faced the sanctions in place then. He wasn't so he didn't.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Aug 2014)

StuAff said:


> And I still don't get why he obsesses about Simpson.



That would be because he is not interested in Pro Racing and only knows about Simpson or what he can find on Wiki. He's free to carry on typing bilge, I shall no longer be responding; I've picked that scab.


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

Marmion said:


> That would be because he is not interested in Pro Racing and only knows about Simpson or what he can find on Wiki. He's free to carry on typing bilge, I shall no longer be responding; I've picked that scab.


It makes you almost miss Red Light
By the way, can anyone tell me if USADA have jurisdiction yet?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Aug 2014)

rich p said:


> By the way, can anyone tell me if USADA have jurisdiction yet?



Not over Simpson, no.


----------



## Hont (21 Aug 2014)

StuAff said:


> And AFAIK, Simpson never threatened to sue anyone who called him a doper, let alone repeatedly go through with it, never called anyone a whore under oath, never bullied his own team-mates into doping (or sacked those who couldn't/wouldn't dope), never hounded anyone out of the peloton....



For me that's the problem with Armstrong. I don't blame him for doping, any more than I blame Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Tyler Hamilton and all the others who doped and may have a conscience. It's the abuse of power and the depths that he would sink to to protect himself that are inexcusable. So yes, a memorial to Tom Simpson is fine, because he died doing what so many others did. Armstrong appears to stand alone in the contemptibility stakes.


----------



## just jim (21 Aug 2014)

He was the first man on the moon though. Nobody can take that from him and that is where I and Cunobell..Cunobelin are in complete agreement.


----------



## HF2300 (21 Aug 2014)

Ah, but was the 'one small step' thing spontaneous or scripted? Did the lander really almost run out of fuel or were they using it illicitly? So many questions...


----------



## just jim (21 Aug 2014)

yes yes but that was then, flying to the moon was done under the testing regime of the time, it simply does not correspond to current moon flights.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Aug 2014)

rich p said:


> It makes you almost miss Red Light
> By the way, can anyone tell me if USADA have jurisdiction yet?



Says the person who claimed that Post Mortem evidence was invalid as proof of doping in Simpson's case

It was explained last time why you asked this question.USADA had no jurisdiction in this case, Do I really need to explain again that was founded some years after SImpson died

Ironic that my knowledge in this area seems much wider then yours?

Have you actually learnt after I provided the evidence that post mortem evidence of doping is accepted by the authorities.... despite your claims that it is not?


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Says the person who claimed that Post Mortem evidence was invalid as proof of doping in Simpson's case
> 
> It was explained last time why you asked this question.USADA had no jurisdiction in this case, Do I really need to explain again that was founded some years after SImpson died
> 
> Ironic that my knowledge in this area seems much wider then yours?


Whoooshhhhh!!!! again!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Aug 2014)

rich p said:


> Whoooshhhhh!!!! again!!!!!!!!



Far easier than actually answering the claims that you made that Post Mortem is not valid evidence?

But your usual standard of reply.


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Far easier than actually answering the claims that you made that Post Mortem is not valid evidence?
> 
> But your usual standard of reply.


So, do USADA have jurisdiction over Armstrong? You never did answer that one.


----------



## just jim (21 Aug 2014)

"You've tried my lies, now try my pies!"


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Aug 2014)

rich p said:


> So, do USADA have jurisdiction over Armstrong? You never did answer that one.




I think that I will answer this one when you have the civility to answer the queries about Whether I have managed to educate you that Post Mortem evidence is valid...


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I think that I will answer this one when you have the civility to answer the queries about Whether I have managed to educate you that Post Mortem evidence is valid...


I doubt you will - I first asked it years ago


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Aug 2014)

You are right... I am not going to stoop to your level.

The answer at the time was unclear.

In 2012 the jurisdiction of the USADA in Armstrong's case was questioned by the UCI.

The facts are simple... there was a dispute over jurisdiction, and neither side at the time was clear legally as to where jurisdiction lay.

This was a query whether the USADA had any jurisdiction outside the US, and this argument resulted in the intervention of the WADA who found in favour of the USADA and queried whether the UCI was in fact the one in breach of it's jurisdiction.

The eventual outcome of the legal arguments and infighting between the WADA, UCI and USADA was that the latter did indeed have jurisdiction

Now here are we on your claim that Post Mortem evidence is not valid evidence of cheating with performance enhancing drugs?


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> You are right... I am not going to stoop to your level.
> 
> The answer at the time was unclear.
> 
> ...


Of course it's evidence of drug taking but it's not a failed test, you idiot - whooooooooosh again


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Aug 2014)

rich p said:


> Of course it's evidence of drug taking but it's not a failed test, you idiot - whooooooooosh again





i can understand your resorting to personal insults after having been forced to withdraw your claims that Post Mortem was not valid evidence, but this is a low level even for you.

Care to explain how you managed to link positive post mortems and failed drugs tests?


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> i can understand your resorting to personal insults after having been forced to withdraw your claims that Post Mortem was not valid evidence, but this is a low level even for you.
> 
> Care to explain how you managed to link positive post mortems and failed drugs tests?


Still missing the point then!


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Aug 2014)

rich p said:


> Still missing the point then!



Not at all....

You have admitted at last that you were wrong in your claims that Post Mortem is not valid evidence, now all you need to do is explain how you have linked this revelation to a failed drugs test.

Of course you can resort to infantile name calling again, rather than explain yourself....


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2014)

I admit nothing! You're still missing the point but hey ho!


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Aug 2014)

Your latest claim is really rather Armstroneque - that a post mortem finding of drug use, is not the same as afailed drugs test.

The same test on the same sample type has the same result, yet one is a fail and one apparently isn't?

Both samples prove positive for the drug, then in both cases it is a fail.... and both prove that the rider in question was cheating


----------



## AndyRM (22 Aug 2014)

I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (22 Aug 2014)

AndyRM said:


> I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.



Don't try to enter into discussion, we've exhausted it. He doesnae listen.


----------



## AndyRM (22 Aug 2014)

Marmion said:


> Don't try to enter into discussion, we've exhausted it. He doesnae listen.



Noted. Cheerio!


----------



## Hont (22 Aug 2014)

How long is the ban for failing a drugs test during a post mortem?


----------



## HF2300 (22 Aug 2014)

Hont said:


> How long is the ban for failing a drugs test during a post mortem?



Life


----------



## just jim (22 Aug 2014)

AndyRM said:


> I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.



Sorry to be pedantic, but it was a combination of amphetamine, alcohol and the heat combined with his tenacious exertion on the climb whilst ill which all contributed to his demise.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Aug 2014)

Marmion said:


> Don't try to enter into discussion, we've exhausted it. He doesnae listen.



... or doesn't listen to some of the tripe, and conform to a limited agenda?

RichP would still be claiming Post Mortem are invalid as evidence if he hadn't been educated!


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Aug 2014)

just jim said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, but it was a combination of amphetamine, alcohol, the heat combined with his tenacious exertion on the climb while ill which all contributed to his demise.



Which is correct, but the question is whether without the amphetamines and alcohol the death would not have occurred, especially given that amphetamine and alcohol are antagonists, one being a stimulant and one a depressive

The adverse effect of one is exacerbated by the other, resulting in a higher risk of cardiac failure, irrational behaviour and inability to recognise your limits.

It is unequivocal that these drugs were the main causes of death in this case


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (22 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> ... or doesn't listen to some of the tripe, and conform to a limited agenda?
> 
> RichP would still be claiming Post Mortem are invalid as evidence if he hadn't been educated!



I think you have made valid points, I and others have agreed with you in many of the issues raised; but it's all got lost in the "Simpson was a doper and nobody agrees with me" line. Which is a shame, as I am sure it would be an interesting discussion otherwise - I'm sure you can bring a lot to the discussion but you need to let the Simpson thing go; we know he doped. Can you and @rich p just not have a shag and be done with it?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Aug 2014)

AndyRM said:


> I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.



The two are only comparable in the sense that they are key in major changes to cycling culture

Simpson's death was a trigger for the entire world of Professional Cycling to take a step back, take a long look and make changes. One of the strongest voices at the time for testing and controlling doping was a Doctor by the name of Pierre Dumas. His prediction of a death in the Peloton was ridiculed prior to this, but entirely vindicated by Simpson's death.

The death triggered measures that were integral to controlling doping

Armstrong's actions have in the same way been a trigger in major changes and despite the dark side, these changes will hopefully in this way a positive legacy for cycling as Simpson.


----------



## AndyRM (23 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The two are only comparable in the sense that they are key in major changes to cycling culture
> 
> Simpson's death was a trigger for the entire world of Professional Cycling to take a step back, take a long look and make changes. One of the strongest voices at the time for testing and controlling doping was a Doctor by the name of Pierre Dumas. His prediction of a death in the Peloton was ridiculed prior to this, but entirely vindicated by Simpson's death.
> 
> ...



When you put it like that, it makes total sense. Though I'm not sure that 'positive legacy' and Armstrong will be an easy comparison, even in 50 years or so.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Aug 2014)

AndyRM said:


> When you put it like that, it makes total sense. Though I'm not sure that 'positive legacy' and Armstrong will be an easy comparison, even in 50 years or so.



That is another issue, and why Simpson is important - he became a cult hero, and the site of his death became a memorial that thousands visit each year as a "pilgrimage"

One would hate to think so, but is there a possibility that Armstrong with his powerful press lobby, become rehabilitated in some way, can we learn from the way that this happened with Simpson?

The attempts of some to dismiss this and refuse to discuss Simpson is dangerous for this reason alone


----------



## AndyRM (23 Aug 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> That is another issue, and why Simpson is important - he became a cult hero, and the site of his death became a memorial that thousands visit each year as a "pilgrimage"
> 
> One would hate to think so, but is there a possibility that Armstrong with his powerful press lobby, become rehabilitated in some way, can we learn from the way that this happened with Simpson?
> 
> The attempts of some to dismiss this and refuse to discuss Simpson is dangerous for this reason alone



I've only got some half baked ideas in response to this, but here they are.

There's no doubt that Simpson is a cult hero and part of me wonders if that's because he represents a simpler, laissez-faire sort of attitude which seems to have become popular when eulogising about 'the good old days'. I think that dying in pursuit of a dream, with all the flaws and baggage that comes with it is also part of his story, and for me that is a powerful and almost romantic affair.

The same cannot be said of Armstrong. He is a deeply cynical and corruptive force, who almost seems inhuman the way he talks about cycling and other people. He also lacks any shred of humility, which is why it's so easy to have any sense of sympathy for the man.

For me, that's why you can never equate the two. And I doubt there will be any monuments to Lance, in my lifetime or in the future.


----------



## resal (1 Feb 2015)

Just watched the BBC Armstrong interview on TV. Still nothing to like about him on it. It finishes superbly well. Reminded me of a brush I had with oldroadman a couple of years ago as he was justifying Yates' actions on the Yates and de Jong thread. Lance babbels on about what else could anyone do but dope. If they didn't dope they would have to go back to a factory job or go back to school and get qualifications or work in the fields in France. The journalist then asks what is wrong with that, at least they would have their integrity and what is wrong with working for a wage. Lance then looks at him like he is sh1t. What a moment to close out the interview.



oldroadman said:


> How quick are the majority of posters to condemn, when we are talking about history which happened before some were even out of school, in what was a very different world. People had mouths to feed, no excuse I know, but often the team domestique rider (average pro career maybe 4 years) needed to make what he/she could *to try and secure a better future than a job in a factory.*



I am glad I know what side of the fence I sit on.



resal said:


> I had not spotted this before. What complete and utter rubbish. I started work in a factory at 16. Because I had to. Zero other choices. I still have the jersey I bought with my first weeks wages, many decades ago. A rubbish multicoloured thing but it was new and my first ever new jersey, everything else I had before was at least 2nd hand in most cases about 4th hand, with holes in.
> 
> Working in a factory was absolutely stunning - I got paid. A simple deal, I did stuff somebody wanted me to do and I got enough money to live on and a little left over. Like many of the 4,000 others at that factory, we did an honest day's work and got an honest day's pay. What the he** is wrong with that ?
> 
> ...



Wonderful sequel that Yates recovered from his poor health so rapidly that he secured another DS job. And then he brought out a book which could not have more been a tribute to the Omerta in any way. I loved the title tribute to Lance.


----------



## rich p (1 Feb 2015)

resal said:


> Just watched the BBC Armstrong interview on TV. Still nothing to like about him on it. It finishes superbly well. Reminded me of a brush I had with oldroadman a couple of years ago as he was justifying Yates' actions on the Yates and de Jong thread. Lance babbels on about what else could anyone do but dope. If they didn't dope they would have to go back to a factory job or go back to school and get qualifications or work in the fields in France. The journalist then asks what is wrong with that, at least they would have their integrity and what is wrong with working for a wage. Lance then looks at him like he is sh1t. What a moment to close out the interview.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apart from having a retrospective dig at oldroadman and restating your position (in agreement with most others on here), that Yates and Armstrong aren't role models of propriety, what is your point?
Succinctly if possible.


----------



## oldroadman (1 Feb 2015)

rich p said:


> Apart from having a retrospective dig at oldroadman and restating your position (in agreement with most others on here), that Yates and Armstrong aren't role models of propriety, what is your point?
> Succinctly if possible.


The last three words are asking a near impossibility. Plenty of accusations fly about from Mr (or Ms?) Resal, but mud slinging is not proof or fact. A (very old) comment about factory work, just illustrates a dilemma which many young people have, and if they have a talent they seek, correctly, to exploit it to the best of their ability. This can lead, at times, down a darker route than they had imagined. I'm sorry for them, and even sorrier for those who did the job correctly, clean, taking every legal advantage but not crossing the line, The comments about Sky and the errors which they corrected (viz Leinders, a vey stupid decision), and throwing more mud at Mr Brailsford just seem a bit petty and riven with agendas. That's my lot, no further comments, I know what I did and I can look anyone in the eye, including (especially) my family.


----------



## resal (1 Feb 2015)

Easy - you want it brief - bigoted, snobbish views like oldroadman projects, cultivate the ignorance that makes fools like Yates & JTL and others, even smarter ones like Lance and Leinders to think that stealing from others is better than working in a factory. Oldroadman even uses his personal prejudice to excuse their actions. I am not throwing mud at Brailsford. Brailsford, the world proclaimed master of both strategy and tactics, has smothered himself in his own mud and would rather everyone, particularly those who wear the yellow bracelet he has been selling, bought into the "look we are clean" success story he has been selling, pretended it had not happened.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (3 Feb 2015)

And still a nobber. And telling lies.
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...hit-parked-cars-blamed-girlfriend-anna-hansen


----------



## Bollo (3 Feb 2015)

Marmion said:


> And still a nobber. And telling lies.
> http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...hit-parked-cars-blamed-girlfriend-anna-hansen


Just found the story on the Grauniad. I am struggling to warm to the man.


----------



## rich p (3 Feb 2015)

He's being made a scapegoat - everyone in the peloton was getting bladdered, smashing into cars and doing a runner.
Lance is just being unfairly treated while others are simply getting a 10% decrease in their non-claim discount.


----------



## StuAff (3 Feb 2015)

There's a comment on the ESPN story that 'Ullrich followed 4 minutes behind' `


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Feb 2015)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...rmstrong-accident-girlfriend-police/22808477/

As the article states near the end, its second nature.


----------



## StuAff (3 Feb 2015)

Already being discussed in Pro Cycling......


----------



## ColinJ (3 Feb 2015)

StuAff said:


> Already being discussed in Pro Cycling......


Which thread?

I can't find it.


----------



## StuAff (3 Feb 2015)

ColinJ said:


> Which thread?
> 
> I can't find it.


https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-armstrong-lie.160135/page-25


----------



## ColinJ (4 Feb 2015)

StuAff said:


> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-armstrong-lie.160135/page-25


Ta!


----------



## MrPie (4 Feb 2015)

Marmion said:


> And still a nobber. And telling lies.
> http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...hit-parked-cars-blamed-girlfriend-anna-hansen



Any sliver of credibility (?!) just evaporated. Nobber? First class nobber.


----------



## Arrowfoot (4 Feb 2015)

Usually there is an additional charge for providing the wrong details of the driver and the GF has stated to the press that it was a joint decision to provide her name. 

http://jezebel.com/lance-armstrong-is-the-worst-boyfriend-ever-1683593430


----------



## sgl5gjr (4 Feb 2015)

MrPie said:


> Any sliver of credibility (?!) just evaporated. Nobber? First class nobber.



He either is a pathological liar......or maybe he has an undiagnosed personality disorder....the guy needs some help whatever


----------



## Drago (4 Feb 2015)

Why are we surprised?


----------



## Arrowfoot (4 Feb 2015)

Drago said:


> Why are we surprised?



I suppose we are surprised that he still does not get it. I won't be surprised that after the conclusion of the case, in a interview probably in his bike store, he tells the interviewer that he will do it again in the same circumstances and citing that others do it all the time and he was picked out because of his past.


----------



## ManiaMuse (4 Feb 2015)

sgl5gjr said:


> He either is a pathological liar......or maybe he has an undiagnosed personality disorder....the guy needs some help whatever


Maybe he should see the psychiatrist who helped out Suarez...


----------



## cd365 (4 Feb 2015)

Why still care what he does?


----------



## Ganymede (4 Feb 2015)

Bollo said:


> I am struggling to warm to the man.


I'm enjoying the delicacy of your expression, Bollo.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Feb 2015)

$10 million fine - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31495246
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-loses-in-dollar-10-million-sca-promotions-lawsuit

EDIT: I didn't see that this has already been posted on the Doping Git thread.


----------



## oldroadman (16 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> $10 million fine - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31495246
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-loses-in-dollar-10-million-sca-promotions-lawsuit
> 
> EDIT: I didn't see that this has already been posted on the Doping Git thread.


It's a civil case, so it's an order from the court, strictly speaking not a fine. Just an order to repay shed loads of cash to people who decided that stuffing yourself with chemicals was cheating them out of their insurance money. Fair enough.


----------



## Arrowfoot (16 Feb 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/16/lance-armstrong-fined-10m-drugs-lies-sca-promotions

Lawsuit by Federal Government representing US Postal interest pending.


----------



## AndyRM (16 Feb 2015)

I hope it gets merged and we are treated to another thread about how the moderators should do their jobs.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> $10 million fine - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31495246
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-loses-in-dollar-10-million-sca-promotions-lawsuit
> 
> EDIT: I didn't see that this has already been posted on the Doping Git thread.



Why not start a new thread, we need more Lance threads?


----------



## Drago (17 Feb 2015)

10 million poorer and only one nut. Things aren't going well for him.

Still, at least he's got his amateur bike racing to distract him...


----------



## raleighnut (17 Feb 2015)




----------



## HF2300 (17 Feb 2015)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Why not start a new thread, we need more Lance threads?



Oh, someone has...

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/armstrong-10-years-later-ruled-to-pay-back-bonus.174677/


----------



## Shaun (18 Feb 2015)

*Armstrong - 10 years later ruled to pay back bonus* thread merged with this one:



Arrowfoot said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/16/lance-armstrong-fined-10m-drugs-lies-sca-promotions
> 
> Lawsuit by Federal Government representing US Postal interest pending.


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 Feb 2015)

User14044mountain said:


> There is nothing attractive about that man. Why would anyone want to date him?


Money.


Oh, hang on ...


----------



## Sunny Portrush (24 Oct 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> Money.
> 
> 
> Oh, hang on ...



As Mrs Merton asked to Debbie McGhee - "What do you see in the millionaire Paul Daniels?" - lol


----------



## blazed (24 Oct 2015)

Who knows... Maybe

Power
Confidence
Success
Money

And lots more. I'd imagine the typical woman would find a lot attractive about him. Not everyday you meet a man who has beaten cancer, or started a charity which has rasied hundreds of millions of dollars, or won 7 tdf's etc. 

One of the most driven and determined people I can think of, women find that attractive. So do I, and I'm straight (although I do doubt myself when it comes to Armstrong.)


----------



## AndyRM (24 Oct 2015)

blazed said:


> Who knows... Maybe
> 
> Power
> Confidence
> ...



Wow.

Seriously?


----------



## blazed (24 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3969118, member: 45"]He didn't win 7 TDFs.[/QUOTE]So who won them?


----------



## blazed (24 Oct 2015)

Merckx is a 5x tour de France winner... Pantani and Ullrich are tdf champs, Contador a 2x winner?

But Armstrong has won none? A sea of TDF doping champs but only Armstrong gets deleted from history. He won each title just as fairly as the guys above (and many more).


----------



## blazed (24 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3969160, member: 45"]The riders who he cheated out of first.[/QUOTE]
Who were they then?


----------



## blazed (24 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3969160, member: 45"]The riders who he cheated out of first.[/QUOTE]
Who won Merckx titles?


----------



## gavroche (24 Oct 2015)

blazed said:


> Who knows... Maybe
> 
> Power
> Confidence
> ...


----------



## blazed (24 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3969207, member: 45"]Who they were has no relevance to Armstrong not winning 7 TDFs.[/QUOTE]
Of course it does. You are implying these people were 'cheated'. There is a reason his titles were not given to any other riders.

Unless you can be certain there were clean riders, and the only reason these clean riders never won the tdf was due to the increase doping produces? This a highly unlikely scenario. He cheated the fans, not the riders.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2015)

Armstrong is a nobed. Has anyone mentioned that yet?


----------



## Big Dave laaa (24 Oct 2015)

Armstrong should be erased from cycling history. He ironically is a cancer on the sport. He ruined lives with his psychopathic behaviour and deserves to remain in isolation.


----------



## blazed (25 Oct 2015)

Big Dave laaa said:


> Armstrong should be erased from cycling history. He ironically is a cancer on the sport. He ruined lives with his psychopathic behaviour and deserves to remain in isolation.


Who's lives did he ruin? The people you are referring to have benefited from being ascoiated with him. The likes of David Walsh would be relative nobodies if not for him. They are also paid well to talk at events. 

Saying he was a cancer on the sport is ridiculous considering everybody was doping long before he came along. Police busts finding huge hauls of drugs in team cars, entire teams confessing to doping. He entered sport where everybody doped, a sport where you could not win if you didn't dope.

He raised the profile of cycling. Nobody gave a sh*t about cycling before him, it was a fringe sport.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (25 Oct 2015)

blazed said:


> Who's lives did he ruin? The people you are referring to have benefited from being ascoiated with him. The likes of David Walsh would be relative nobodies if not for him. They are also paid well to talk at events.
> 
> Saying he was a cancer on the sport is ridiculous considering everybody was doping long before he came along. Police busts finding huge hauls of drugs in team cars, entire teams confessing to doping. He entered sport where everybody doped, a sport where you could not win if you didn't dope.
> 
> He raised the profile of cycling. Nobody gave a sh*t about 2 before him, it was a fringe sport.



I suppose you think his treatment of Greg LeMond was acceptable as well. I'm not talking just about journalists but also other riders, some of whom were coerced into doping by Armstrong and his lackies. I know I'm wasting my time as you're obviously an armstrong fanboy and also a bit of a troll on here.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2015)

I cant be arsed to quote the fool's post above but what a load of twonk.


----------



## mpre53 (26 Oct 2015)

My lord, people are still talking about Uniball as if he were still relevant?


----------



## HF2300 (26 Oct 2015)

This is 'The Armstrong *Lie*' as in 'You wouldn't let it...', I guess.

Could someone please put this thread out of our misery.


----------



## blazed (27 Oct 2015)

mpre53 said:


> My lord, people are still talking about Uniball as if he were still relevant?


It's not like there's currently a movie in cinemas up and down the country about him is it... Clearly irrelevant. 

The greatest cyclist of all time and one of the most famous athletes of all time will never be irrelevant.


----------



## blazed (27 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3974276, member: 45"]He's not the greatest cyclist. His drugs made him more than he ever could be.[/QUOTE]

Who is the greatest of all time then? All the greats were made better than they ever could be by doping.


----------



## Hacienda71 (27 Oct 2015)

Beryl Burton.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (27 Oct 2015)

blazed said:


> Who is the greatest of all time then?



Eddy Merckx!


----------



## oldroadman (27 Oct 2015)

blazed said:


> Who is the greatest of all time then? All the greats were made better than they ever could be by doping.


There is/was no single "greatest". There are several in every era and discipline. For instance, Chris Hoy may have been amongst the greatest kilometre/sprint/keirin riders in his era. Whether he was the greatest in that era is a subjective opinion. Which is what Blazed is offering, and is entitled to feel that way, even if lots of others think that it's not a valid opinion.
In summary, the whole discussion is pointless, and I'm thinking that statements like "cycling was a backwater sport until LA appeared" can only be made by someone (maybe US based?) who has never looked into Europe or enjoyed a long connection with the sport. Then, that's just my subjective opinion, and what do I know after all the years? Maybe if I had given in to temptation and used certain help I would have made more money, but then looking people in the eye and being able to say "I was clean" is a lot better all these years later.


----------



## mpre53 (28 Oct 2015)

blazed said:


> The greatest cyclist of all time and one of the most famous athletes of all time will never be irrelevant.



I agree. Eddy Merckx will never be irrelevant.


----------



## mpre53 (30 Oct 2015)

User said:


> *According to the US media, Lance Armstrong explained last month in the United States government case against him that general manager BMC Jim Ochowicz and former team-mate Phil Anderson orchestrated a $1m race win in 1993.*
> 
> 
> http://cyclingquotes.com/news/armst...owicz_helped_fix_1m_race/#Bm859YdFKSmELBGh.97



Old news. Lance himself personally delivered the money to Gaggioli. He "believes" that others knew and/or abetted it. But Lance himself orchestrated it.

And it's not the first time that a cyclist has paid a rider---or riders---from another team to go into the tank for him. Sometimes, it's done during the race itself at the front of a breakaway, on faith that payment will be made later.


----------

