The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[johnr]

The tapes of the testimony shown in the Australian documentary made interesting viewing. Seeing the evidence of him lying on oath makes you wonder what the FBI were playing at dropping their investigation.

 

[mickle]

Interesting read. the last line does ring true if we are all very honest, properly honest I mean.

Properly honest?
You know what? I can say, in all honesty, in the same situation as them: No. I wouldn't have doped. Because for me, a game won by cheating isn't a game worth winning. And because I have a frickin moral backbone.

 

[Red Light]

You don't seem to have a point here apart from to try to personnally belittle anyone who is trying to do anything positive for the sport. You've already lost the argument on Armstrong (well, you never knew enough to be taken seriously on that anyway) and you not only don't have the good grace to back down a bit and admit you were wrong, you start attacking other people who are doing trying to do something. Unbelievable.

He's a minor player in professional cycling whose out to get his little bit of fame. Any suggestion he was forced out of the sport by his unwillingness to dope to compete, or that Armstrong damaged his sporting career by cheating is trounced by his admission that he never came across doping and only heard rumours of it in his road cycling career.

 

[DogTired]

He's a minor player in professional cycling whose out to get his little bit of fame. Any suggestion he was forced out of the sport by his unwillingness to dope to compete, or that Armstrong damaged his sporting career by cheating is trounced by his admission that he never came across doping and only heard rumours of it in his road cycling career.

Not quite true. He would be a victim of passive doping and that could've destroyed him (physically and career wise). As he never came across doping he would have no chance of competing with the cheats so would inevitably, given the performance boost PEDs give, been forced out.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

New allegations that Nike are up to their necks in this too - did they pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to have Armstrong's 1999 positive test covered up?

 

[Red Light]

Not quite true. He would be a victim of passive doping and that could've destroyed him (physically and career wise). As he never came across doping he would have no chance of competing with the cheats so would inevitably, given the performance boost PEDs give, been forced out.

Maybe but also from his performance in cross country mountain biking he was not that competitive anyway. Some people are destined never to reach the top no matter how hard they try and how much they dope and I suspect he is one of them. And now he gets his five minutes of fame by turning up outside Nike with a half formed message of protest.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Maybe but also from his performance in cross country mountain biking he was not that competitive anyway. Some people are destined never to reach the top no matter how hard they try and how much they dope and I suspect he is one of them. And now he gets his five minutes of fame by turning up outside Nike with a half formed message of protest.

There's absolutely no evidence for this view - you have just made it up on the basis of nothing at all. You seem to be completely cynical about everyone's motivations except Lance Armstrong... and you seem to want massive standards of proof when it comes to Armstrong but are quite happy to openly makes stuff up about others. As I said, unbelievable.

 

[Red Light]

New allegations that Nike are up to their necks in this too - did they pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to have Armstrong's 1999 positive test covered up?

Hardly new. A rehash of 2006 hearsay which the person at the centre of it has denied.

"Devries has always denied the allegations. He submitted a affidavit during the SCA case saying that LeMond’s allegations were made up."​

 

[DogTired]

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-a-scandal-too-far/

Interesting read. the last line does ring true if we are all very honest, properly honest I mean.

Nope, been there, done the would you like a little bit of corruption to make you somewhat richer. Lost the job, the others carried on and made a mint and never got caught. I've never regretted walking away.

Common amongst the cheats is a regret and a lack of self-respect about what they did. Win at all costs? Nah - when that ephemeral win fades and the crowds have gone home you're stuck with yourself to talk to.

Those Nigerian 419 scams - they only work on you if you're dishonest. Scammers know you can't cheat an honest man.

Apologies, a bit of seriousness crept in there about human nature. As RedLight isnt around, here's a video of an amusing weatherman to make up for things:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Z7iJ4woQE&feature=player_embedded

 

[Red Light]

You seem to be completely cynical about everyone's motivations except Lance Armstrong...

You are right that I am cynical about a lot of people's motivations in this.

 

[DogTired]

Hardly new. A rehash of 2006 hearsay which the person at the centre of it has denied.

"Devries has always denied the allegations. He submitted a affidavit during the SCA case saying that LeMond’s allegations were made up."​

Stephanie McVeigh (on LA's side) also testified under oath during the SCA case that Betsie Andreu's (not on LA's side) allegations were made up. This worked right up to the point when she admitted on a taped phone call with LeMond that the allegations were true.

There's a pattern here but I just can't put my finger on it...

 

[Crackle]

New allegations that Nike are up to their necks in this too - did they pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to have Armstrong's 1999 positive test covered up?

Dunno, that struck me as a bit like Liggett's text. Needs a bit more corroboration.

 

[Red Light]

Stephanie McVeigh (on LA's side) also testified under oath during the SCA case that Betsie Andreu's (not on LA's side) allegations were made up. This worked right up to the point when she admitted on a taped phone call with LeMond that the allegations were true.

There's a pattern here but I just can't put my finger on it...

I think you mean Stephanie McIlvain. And under oath in front of the Grand Jury in a seven hour investigation into the LeMond phone call recording she has reaffirmed that she did not hear the alledged admission by Armstrong.

The doctor who looked after Armstrong also testified that Armstrong had never told his doctors of any drug use (and he had the problem of it being in the medical notes kept by the hospital if he had lied and that lying would have been a career ending move). But USADA forgot to mention that and Stephanie's testimony in their "judgement".

 

[Norm]

I've removed a number of posts (personal attacks) from this thread. Please play nicely or we might have to remove some posters,too. Thanks.

 

[Crackle]

Sometimes I get to read a post I didn't mean to.

"His supervising physician, Dr. Craig Nichols, signed an affidavit stating that he had not asked Armstrong the questions recounted by the Andreus and that he could find no reference to the subject in Armstrong's medical records. The Andreus could not identify the doctors who came into the room but said Nichols was not one of them."

I guess it's all in the way you choose to say it.