Armstrong charged and banned

[tigger]

Cunobelin, Red Light,

You are getting desperate and starting to be more than a little insulting to the intelligence of everyone here. Even a cursory reading of these forums would make you realise that none of the people arguing on this topic (with the possible exception of that new arrival, 1986tourwinner, or whatever he's called) are obsessed by Armstrong or are discussing this to the exclusion of everything else. Most people on this thread have a long, long interest in pro-cycling, a lot of knowledge about it, and are genuinely concerned for the future of the sport. My personal obsession is actually Colombian and Japanese cyclists, which you'd know if you'd been here a while and been paying attention. Armstrong is a giant and unavoidable figure in the sport; it's his stature that casts the shadow here, not the choices of forum members.

However incorrect or misinterpreted what you say is, I still assume you feel the same way about pro-cycling as a whole, so please have the good faith not to start sayings things about other members that are blatantly untrue.

Thank-you.

Put 'em on your ignore list. Can't work out if they are trolls, the same person or possibly just very _ _ _

 

[PaulB]

Your earlier post clearly implied that there were other books which covered the same ground as Hamilton's, eg USPS - and there aren't.

I can see why you (or anyone else) might have a problem with Hamilton. After all the years of lies and unconvincing excuses it's hard to suddenly trust the guy. However, what he seems to be saying, from what we've seen of the book so far, is being corroborated by other riders. Also, he gave testimony to the Federal investigation - do you think he lied to them, and risked jail for perjury? If you've followed the arc of his initial lies, through to his attempted comeback, subsequent ban for another doping offence and treatment for depression then it seems unlikely that he would suddenly start up on a whole fresh wave of untruths.

Fid it duck.

My problem with Hamilton is that he's a proven liar with a book to sell but worse than that, much much worse than that is that he's a snitch. A grass. A nark. A tell-tales-out-of-school stool-pigeon. Nothing good ever comes from out of a dirt-bag like that. Naturally it will be snapped up by those with an agenda against Pharmstrong while those still in that river in Egypt will condemn him for being an also-ran trying to even up the score by siding with those out to get him. Everyone's looking for confirmation bias but it should be read with the foreknowledge of where it's come from. And that renders it pretty much worthless.

 

[thom]

Is he (being exposed as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history)?

Or is the TdeF, the UCI, and pro-cycling, et al, in general being exposed as the most systematic, institutional, of fraudsters in sporting history.

Certainly this goes beyond LA, that is clear but you can't deny that he is the one it centered around or that it was his palmares that was to benefit the most.
Is there any indication that the TdF/Amaury was part of the collusion ? On this I'm not sure.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Put 'em on your ignore list. Can't work out if they are trolls, the same person or possibly just very _ _ _

I don't use an ignore list, but this is making me reconsider.

 

[rich p]

I don't use an ignore list, but this is making me reconsider.

Neither did I but way back in post 1816 I changed my policy for the trolls on here.

 

[Stig-OT-Dump]

I love all the rants about Landis and Hamilton being unrelialble because they lied in the past. They were buried deep in a culture of doping. The peer pressure would have been immense. At a time when admission of guilt would have had incredibly severe repercussions they lied about their misdeeds. A bit like my kids lying about eating biscuits when they have crumbs on their lips, or me fibbing to my good lady wife about just how much I have had to drink when I stagger in after a "do".
Then, when they won't lose their livelihood, UNLESS they have committed libel / slander - whichever it is when you lie in print - they suddenly become unreliable. Yet for whatever reason, they are not taken to court by the people they have outed (if that is the right phrase).
Now I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have aged, I have become a lot more candid about what I do. I was up to all sorts in my youth and always thought I could talk my way out of things. These days, I know my sins will find me out and realise I am better spilling the beans first so at least I can put an Alistair Campbell-like spin on things.
I would say that Flandis and Hamilton are all the more reliable because of their pasts. It doesn't make them admirable or less odious than they might have been, but a wish to be candid, clear and privately absolved for having spoken out and come clean would be a very powerful motivator.

An on a totally different matter, the time I realised Lance doped was when I read "It's not about the bike". His attitude when facing cancer, the desire to win, the need to know and use every scientific advantage to achieve an aim was just so different to my experience (and it wasn't my battle with cancer, it was my son's) made me realise that he would not hesitate at using anything that would give him an advantage in any competition, that he would know what to ask, and of whom.

Well, I've added very little to the debate, just expressed an opinion that the people protesting innocence are less reliable than those proclaiming guilt. As you were....

 

[Smokin Joe]

I love all the rants about Landis and Hamilton being unrelialble because they lied in the past. THey were buried deep in a culture of doping. The peer pressure would have been immense. At a time when admissionof guilt would have had incredibly severe repercussions they lied about their misdeeds. A bit like my kids lying about eating biscuits when they have crumbs on their lips, or me fibbing to my good lady wife about just how much I have had to drink when I stagger in after a "do".
Then, when they won't lose their livelihood, UNLESS they have committed libel / slander - whichever it is when you lie in print - they suddenly become unreliable. Yet for whatever reason, they are not taken to court by the people they have outed (if that is the right phrase).
Now I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have aged, I have become a lot more candid about what I do. I was up to all sorts in my youth and always thought I could talk my way out of things. These days, I know my sins will find me out and realise I am better spilling teh beans first so at least I can put an Alistair Campbell-like spin on things.
I would say that Flandis and Hamilton are all the more reliable because of their pasts. It doesn't make them admirable or less odious than they might have been, but a wish to be candid, clear and privately absolved for having spoken out and come clean would be a very powerful motivator.

Good post.

Up until very recently all sports people caught doping would deny any knowledge of how the substance came to be in their system because that was what the culture of their sport programmed them to do. Landis and Hamilton were no different to anyone else there, with the odd exception such as millar.

 

[rich p]

Good post.

Up until very recently all sports people caught doping would deny any knowledge of how the substance came to be in their system because that was what the culture of their sport programmed them to do. Landis and Hamilton were no different to anyone else there, with the odd exception such as millar.

Agreed. The smokescreens were automatic however preposterous their excuses ( poisoned, chimera, sex, beef - take your choice).
I wonder if there will be a a more open acceptance if they do get nicked in future - hmmm! Frank Schleck listening?

 

[Noodley]

chimera sex beef

That sounds like it would be quite nice covered in batter

 

[Red Light]

You've not been keeping up, Armstong has done no more than 250 tests. And probably fewer.

Which bit of "500 or whatever the number of tests was" did you not understand?

 

[ufkacbln]

Is this your only concern, your principal concern, a secondary concern ?!

Specifically, are you at all concerned about the content of this thread, the LA story, that he is being exposed by USADA as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history ?

The USADA is not my only concern by any means, nor the primary concern.

The problem I have is very simple. and to that end I use the "warnings" as an illustration.

The allegation was that Armstrong was able to "avoid tests" and "fix the results" because HE was warned befiore the tests.

If this was the case and Armstrong was unique then the focus should fully be on Armstrong and how he managed this.

However if you look at the fact then ALL the athletes are warned in advance.If Hamilton's testimony is then believed then it appears that these warnings were used by a wide range of riders to avoid positive tests.

If the rules were applied correctly and the riders chaperoned then this should not be possible.

It is no longer a case of how one rider managed to beat the system, but how the system has collapsed and failed completely.

If you concentrate on the original case and only investigate Armstrong then it does the sport as a whole a disservice by failing to investigate how al the others abused the same system.

The content of this thread is similar.

There are too many who dismiss any suggestion that the investigation needs to be widened as "pointing the finger elsewhere" or "FanBoy twaddle" or in one case as a "W@nkfest"

By all means if the thread is simply a sycophantic rant about Armstrong then the suggestion about looking at the wider implications is inappropriate, but if anyone is really interested in the sport then looking at how so many riders were able to beat the system is entirely appropriate.

The question is surely how cycling as a sport became the biggest sporting fraud in history?

 

[Chuffy]

Put 'em on your ignore list. Can't work out if they are trolls, the same person or possibly just very _ _ _

They're separate people and in other areas of online cycling life they are both sensible and respected posters. Sadly, on this board and topic they are neither.

 

[ufkacbln]

Neither did I but way back in post 1816 I changed my policy for the trolls on here.

You mean when you decided to exclude anything outside your closed agenda and decided to limit your view to sycophantic posts?

I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.

By all means your right, but says more about you than any of the arguments on the thread.

 

[BJH]

Again though that was becoming down to the investigating the actions of a few and speculation. There is the problem that once again it becomes personalised and this masks the true reality

This is really "old news" in that the events happened some time ago.

Rather than speculate, or guess, why not simply sit back for 6 months, open the box, take time to look at the contents and then have an informed and full investigation.

Which of course leads to the question as to who should investigate. All of the present organisations, WADA, USADA, UCI are all in some way tarnished and too close to be independent

Not sure that either WADA or USADA are discredited unless of course you accept the LA view of the world

 

[BJH]

Is he (being exposed as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history)?

Or is the TdeF, the UCI, and pro-cycling, et al, in general being exposed as the most systematic, institutional, of fraudsters in sporting history.

The amount of collusion that must have gone on to allow any individual to get away with what Armstrong appears to have done; flagrant, repeated and sustained fraud, suggests the sport was rotten to the core. Given how many of that era are still involved, the taint still lingers.

This isn't an either or. On your second question yes the sport could well be the most fraudulent around. But that doesn't change the fact that Big Tex sat right at the top of the tree growing in that cess pool.