Armstrong charged and banned

[Chuffy]

Vaughters on TheClinc
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-confirms-past-doping-by-danielson-others-at-garmin
he seems to be a very articulate bloke and has taken a dig at some of the crap on there....

"All of your theories and conspiracies.... It's like watching monkeys trying to figure out how to open a coconut."

I love that monkeys quote - he doesn't spare them his (well deserved) contempt, but he still goes in, answers hard questions and gives time to a bunch of people who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. Not so sure than Danielson et al will be so impressed though at being outed like that!

 

[Chuffy]

Well lend us the book when you've read it then

Have you still got that copy of Lance to Landis I sent, you cheeky bugger!

Look, this is all very familiar stuff. Landis dropped his bombshell, no-one quite believed him, proven liar etc etc and those who really didn't want to believe it did everything they could to discredit him. Subsequently, he's turned out to be both correct and truthful in what he said. Despite the avalanche of evidence we've had since, you're trying the same tactic with Hamilton. Why? You know how it's going to end.

 

[thom]

More signs of the omerta being broken

 

[Crackle]

Have you still got that copy of Lance to Landis I sent, you cheeky bugger!

Look, this is all very familiar stuff. Landis dropped his bombshell, no-one quite believed him, proven liar etc etc and those who really didn't want to believe it did everything they could to discredit him. Subsequently, he's turned out to be both correct and truthful in what he said. Despite the avalanche of evidence we've had since, you're trying the same tactic with Hamilton. Why? You know how it's going to end.

You never sent it to me, that was the Fignon book and that was passed on.

It's a question of perspective. I'm not denying the thrust of his claims, just the colour he's painting them. Good example is the article in Cycling News about Jaksche, which when you read it gave one impression but that impression altered when you read Vaughters interview.

I can't help feel Hamilton remains as cynical as ever. Telling the truth is just another means to an end. That it maybe the truth, doesn't make it taste better. If he has any salubrious details to tell, I'd like to read another perspective on them and I don't mean the kind of outright denials we're hearing from Riise.

 

[just jim]

Johan Museeuw: “We must break with the hypocrisy. The only way to come out of that murderous spiral is to tackle the constant denial, the silence that continues to haunt us"
More of this please.

 

[Chuffy]

You never sent it to me, that was the Fignon book and that was passed on.

Who the bloody hell did I send it to then? Could have sworn it was you.

 

[Chuffy]

It's a question of perspective. I'm not denying the thrust of his claims, just the colour he's painting them. Good example is the article in Cycling News about Jaksche, which when you read it gave one impression but that impression altered when you read Vaughters interview.

I can't help feel Hamilton remains as cynical as ever. Telling the truth is just another means to an end. That it maybe the truth, doesn't make it taste better. If he has any salubrious details to tell, I'd like to read another perspective on them and I don't mean the kind of outright denials we're hearing from Riise.

That's more sensible and I agree, to a certain extent. My problem with Landis was trying to work out the division between his eye-witness testimony and his interpretation of events.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is but compounded by the fact he's a proven liar adds to his crime sheet of shame. Knowing about him makes me sick but to see his rat-face attempting to justify his telling tales out of school like it's his duty brings chunks of semi-digested food up into my throat. I'm in no way attempting to cast nasturtiums on this odious dirt-bag to defend Lance Armstrong by the way. I am virtually certain Armstrong is guilty but to cash in on it in this way is lower than a snake's scrotum. With orchiditis.

Thanks for explaining your position, I suspect it is a cultural/socio-religious thing, and best we agree to differ on the matter of are snitches/tell-tales/grasses/whistleblowers/informants the lowest of the low as I'd argue, as someone with significant responsibility for our corporate whistleblowing policy, it really depends on if they are telling the truth and 'shopping' real wrongdoing or not!

For the avoidance of doubt.... As an ex-fanboy I am certain as it is possible for me to be at the moment in the current state of the publicly available 'evidence' that Armstrong was, and in my book therefore is and always will be, it is my inner referee* coming out, a dirty cheat. In so doing I feel he had an awful lot in common with EVERYONE else involved in TdF in that era, including those who rode desks, wrenches, coaches and bikes.

There is a saying in Rugby Union refereeing circles Q. "How do you know a player will cheat?" A. "Because he has a seven (or a nine) on his back"

 

[400bhp]

Thanks for explaining your position, I suspect it is a cultural/socio-religious thing, and best we agree to differ on the matter of are snitches/tell-tales/grasses/whistleblowers/informants the lowest of the low as I'd argue, as someone with significant responsibility for our corporate whistleblowing policy, it really depends on if they are telling the truth and 'shopping' real wrongdoing or not!

That's a nice way to put it and I agree.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is

Sorry, but this is the morality of the mafia. Whistleblowers are often the only way in which systematic and organised corruption can come to light. I agree that making money out of it is more dubious, and I am not defending all informers or snitches by any means, but to denounce all and any whistleblowing is ethically very difficult to justify.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I wonder if Paul B would "Snitch if he discovered one of his neighbours was abusing children or had mugged some old dear?

"Snitching" is when you tell teacher your classmate is eating sweets, informing about acts of serious criminality - which EPO use is in sporting terms - is a different matter.

There is a line which often needs to be crossed.

 

[Chuffy]

So. Where do we stand on Lance ratting out Hamilton to the UCI?

 

[PaulB]

I wonder if Paul B would "Snitch if he discovered one of his neighbours was abusing children or had mugged some old dear?

"Snitching" is when you tell teacher your classmate is eating sweets, informing about acts of serious criminality - which EPO use is in sporting terms - is a different matter.

There is a line which often needs to be crossed.

No, I'd help him, obviously. What a ridiculous thing to bring up.

'Serious criminality'! Don't talk soft. If it was 'serious criminality' then he'd have gone to the police, wouldn't he? He's a snitch, end of story.

 

[Red Light]

I wonder if Paul B would "Snitch if he discovered one of his neighbours was abusing children or had mugged some old dear?

Personally I would think in that situation, if he reported his discovery to the relevant authorities to take action that would be acceptable. If he published his allegations in the local newspaper that would not. Its not what you tell, its who you tell it to that makes the difference.

 

[Red Light]

You quoted the ABC link in 2304. He says " I passed hundreds of tests when I probably shouldn't have..." which isn't quite the same as saying "I've passed 200 tests."

No, it started with 2310 with the ESPN video, was replied to by you in 2312 and then my quote of 200 tests in 2314. There was no follow up to my 2304 post. I don't know why you are continuing to mislead when the facts are there to check and easily prove you wrong.

Also, "hundreds" or "a couple of hundred" is - as I'm sure you're aware - is common parlance for many/numerous. Hamilton does not say 200 in either of the clips you posted, yet you chose to twist this and use a specific number of 200 in order to support Armstrong's claim of 500.

A couple is two. To try to claim that a couple of hundred is not 200 is sheer desperation. Hamilton in the ESPN clip says just after 6:30 in that he had a couple of hundred tests despite your categoric claim that he didn't.