The Armstrong Lie

[Pro Tour Punditry]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

...they were answered

If only you accepted this.

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

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

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

Is that your point? I agree.

 

[Crackle]

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]

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/