Questions for Lance
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:New question.
Lance, what are you doing with the monsterous start fee's you're charging for your comeback? You've said this is not about the money it's about cancer awareness. Why would you want to change USD500,000 to start in a race in New Zealand, should you not be grasping the chance to get some awareness up in NZ?
How much did the TdU stump up to get you to Oz? How much are the Giro organisers paying you?
Tour of Britain organisers were rumoured (according to a few bored photographers and hacks in the media area) to have paid the likes of Quickstep, Phonak, T-Mobile, Lotto and CSC 500K GBP a piece to turn up with their star riders in 2006 (Landis, Ullrich, Basso - that went went :roll: ).
Based on that baseless rumour, I reckon they were doing well to even be offered Armstrong at such a price. I thought start fees got shared out among the team to balance out the wage gap between stars and domestiques a bit.0 -
The whole point leguape is that this is an "awareness" event, where he is riding for a good cause, not for appearance money nor to swell the coffers of his team.0
-
Whatever he uses, it seems pretty certain that he does keep personal tabs on what is said about him on the web.NervexProf wrote:But tracking every forum and blog, that's something more complicated.
This is fairly easy, using Google Alerts.
The last time I saw Armstrong, he’d just gotten a news-alert service on his BlackBerry that beeped whenever it located a news article with his name in it. The thing was buzzing every couple minutes. And he looked at it every time.
http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html0 -
South Australia claim he's not getting any "government money"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 375027.htmFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
He wouldn't get an alert if someone were to type:the Texan is a money grabber, out to raise awareness of his ego and it's backfiring already as fans reheat the debate over his doping history0
-
I have seen him wearing a `Livestrong` skinsuit in those sessions. Given that his comeback is supposedly to promote `Livestrong`, I wonder if the cost of these sessions were paid for by the `Livestrong` foundation? On the other hand perhaps Armstrong or someone else paid for them and then wrote off the cost against their taxes, citing the `charitable` nature of his comeback and the LAF...Kléber wrote:There's certainly a lot of money at stake. The "exclusive videos" in the windtunnel were really free adverts for Trek, Giro and Nike, lapped up by the fans and sections of the cycling media looking for something to fill their pages with.
Contador went to the same windtunnel at the same time and cyclingnews.com gave him just eight lines of copy alongside a stock photo.
There are a couple of very good questions in there.
0 -
Armstrong`s revisionist approach to history and his general manipulation of the media is positively Orwellian. Another favourite `Armstrong meme` is the one which claims that it has been `proven` that his positive samples from the 1999 Tour had been `tampered` with...iainf72 wrote:
A lot of people will believe this. And that's his game. I don't know how many times recently I've been told that he was "the most tested athlete" - Yeah, ok, not even close.afx237vi wrote:Could you please ask Lance whether he actually believes this horsecrap, and if he doesn't, why does he expect us to?
As the saying goes, `He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future`.
Of course, none of the questions we all really want to know the answers to (or for which we seek final confirmation of what we already know) will be put to Armstrong, let alone receive a full and honest reply. Given this perhaps the questions should be directed at Pete Cossins. For example, do you sincerely believe that Armstrong raced clean? If not why are you still falling in line will all the other publications fawning at his feet?
That said, perhaps Armstrong could be persuaded to give us more insight into how his corporate-backed media manipulation machine operates. For example, L`Equipe last year featured a major interview with Jesus Manzano where he said the following:
I want to give you an example, something I've never spoken about except to the police up until now. It concerns one of the four Spanish Laboratories credited by the UCI. This laboratory who is in charge of sending the "UCI" vampires (doctors)to take the samples during the Vuelta and other races is the same lab that's in charge of the doctor visits to the cyclists, they follow the cyclists and give them the stamp of approval on their licenses. The owner of this clinic, a renowned hemotologist, called Walter Viru, who is one of the doctors for Kelme to alert them the day before the uci vampires were coming to take the samples from the cyclist. And he did the same thing with Del Moral, the doctor for the U.S. Postal team and then Discovery, a good friend of his.
Most of the major US cycling news sites reported this interview in full, apart from that last sentence. Subsequently this part of the interview has disappeared from the whole internet, with the exception of the cyclingfansanonymous site. Even L`Equipe has now removed the article from it`s archives.
This is one example of many such `erasures` I could quote. It would be interesting to know what resources are dedicated to managing Armstrong`s representation in the media and elsewhere.0 -
Kléber wrote:The whole point leguape is that this is an "awareness" event, where he is riding for a good cause, not for appearance money nor to swell the coffers of his team.
So the rest of the Astana team and support that would have to turn up for him to appear in a UCI sanctioned race, they're expected to take one for Lance?
The organisers would go through a team if they wanted them to attend, and so given that "Promoter Jorge Sandoval has been negotiating with Armstrong's team over the last month" we're talking about Astana, the team, not Armstrong, the individual.0 -
leguape wrote:
The organisers would go through a team if they wanted them to attend, and so given that "Promoter Jorge Sandoval has been negotiating with Armstrong's team over the last month" we're talking about Astana, the team, not Armstrong, the individual.
I'd take that to mean his handlers rather than AstanaFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Armstrong`s revisionist approach to history and his general manipulation of the media is positively Orwellian. Another favourite `Armstrong meme` is the one which claims that it has been `proven` that his positive samples from the 1999 Tour had been `tampered` with...iainf72 wrote:
A lot of people will believe this. And that's his game. I don't know how many times recently I've been told that he was "the most tested athlete" - Yeah, ok, not even close.afx237vi wrote:Could you please ask Lance whether he actually believes this horsecrap, and if he doesn't, why does he expect us to?
As the saying goes, `He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future`.
Of course, none of the questions we all really want to know the answers to (or for ehich we seek final confirmation of what we already know) will be put to Armstrong, let alone receive a full and honest reply. Given this perhaps the questions should be directed at Pete Cossins. For example, do you sincerely believe that Armstrong raced clean? If not why are you still falling in line will all the other publications fawning at his feet?
That said, perhaps Armstrong could be persuaded to give us more insight into how his corporate-backed media manipulation machine operates. For example, L`Equipe last year featured a major interview with Jesus Manzano where he said the following:
I want to give you an example, something I've never spoken about except to the police up until now. It concerns one of the four Spanish Laboratories credited by the UCI. This laboratory who is in charge of sending the "UCI" vampires (doctors)to take the samples during the Vuelta and other races is the same lab that's in charge of the doctor visits to the cyclists, they follow the cyclists and give them the stamp of approval on their licenses. The owner of this clinic, a renowned hemotologist, called Walter Viru, who is one of the doctors for Kelme to alert them the day before the uci vampires were coming to take the samples from the cyclist. And he did the same thing with Del Moral, the doctor for the U.S. Postal team and then Discovery, a good friend of his.
Most of the major US cycling news sites reported this interview in full, apart from that last sentence. Subsequently this part of the interview has disappeared from the whole internet, with the exception of the cyclingfansanonymous site. Even L`Equipe has now removed the article from it`s archives.
This is one example of many such `erasures` I could quote. It would be interesting to know what resources are dedicated to managing Armstrong`s representation in the media and elsewhere.
Or maybe, just maybe, professional journalists looked at their copy of McNae's and thought "we're going to have a hard time standing that one up" and thought better of publishing an actionable libel against a third party?
You think that every news outlet in the world, barring CFA, took it down because they got a cease and desist from Armstrong? He's not even in the frame on that one, other than by jigsaw identification.aurelio wrote:
I have seen him wearing a `Livestrong` skinsuit in those sessions. Given that his comeback is supposedly to promote `Livestrong`, I wonder if the cost of these sessions were paid for by the `Livestrong` foundation? On the other hand perhaps Armstrong or someone else paid for them and then wrote off the cost against their taxes, citing the `charitable` nature of his comeback and the LAF...Kléber wrote:There's certainly a lot of money at stake. The "exclusive videos" in the windtunnel were really free adverts for Trek, Giro and Nike, lapped up by the fans and sections of the cycling media looking for something to fill their pages with.
Contador went to the same windtunnel at the same time and cyclingnews.com gave him just eight lines of copy alongside a stock photo.
There are a couple of very good questions in there.
UCI regulations perhaps, as he can't move his licence to Astana until the new year, same as all those other riders who are moving team but can't wear their new trade colours until the new year? Assuming he's currently registered with Livestrong for riding things like Leadville etc of course0 -
A slim maybe, given that all the other accusations made by Manzano were repeated in full. So why was the response to the accusations made against USP/Discovery so different?leguape wrote:aurelio wrote:...perhaps Armstrong could be persuaded to give us more insight into how his corporate-backed media manipulation machine operates. For example, L`Equipe last year featured a major interview with Jesus Manzano where he said the following:
I want to give you an example, something I've never spoken about except to the police up until now. It concerns one of the four Spanish Laboratories credited by the UCI. This laboratory who is in charge of sending the "UCI" vampires (doctors)to take the samples during the Vuelta and other races is the same lab that's in charge of the doctor visits to the cyclists, they follow the cyclists and give them the stamp of approval on their licenses. The owner of this clinic, a renowned hemotologist, called Walter Viru, who is one of the doctors for Kelme to alert them the day before the uci vampires were coming to take the samples from the cyclist. And he did the same thing with Del Moral, the doctor for the U.S. Postal team and then Discovery, a good friend of his.
Most of the major US cycling news sites reported this interview in full, apart from that last sentence. Subsequently this part of the interview has disappeared from the whole internet, with the exception of the cyclingfansanonymous site. Even L`Equipe has now removed the article from it`s archives.
This is one example of many such `erasures` I could quote. It would be interesting to know what resources are dedicated to managing Armstrong`s representation in the media and elsewhere.
Or maybe, just maybe, professional journalists looked at their copy of McNae's and thought "we're going to have a hard time standing that one up" and thought better of publishing an actionable libel against a third party?0 -
The questions have nothing to do with explaining why he is wearing a `Livestrong` skinsuit. :roll:leguape wrote:aurelio wrote:
I have seen him wearing a `Livestrong` skinsuit in those sessions. Given that his comeback is supposedly to promote `Livestrong`, I wonder if the cost of these sessions were paid for by the `Livestrong` foundation? On the other hand perhaps Armstrong or someone else paid for them and then wrote off the cost against their taxes, citing the `charitable` nature of his comeback and the LAF...Kléber wrote:There's certainly a lot of money at stake. The "exclusive videos" in the windtunnel were really free adverts for Trek, Giro and Nike, lapped up by the fans and sections of the cycling media looking for something to fill their pages with.
Contador went to the same windtunnel at the same time and cyclingnews.com gave him just eight lines of copy alongside a stock photo.
There are a couple of very good questions in there.
UCI regulations perhaps, as he can't move his licence to Astana until the new year, same as all those other riders who are moving team but can't wear their new trade colours until the new year? Assuming he's currently registered with Livestrong for riding things like Leadville etc of course
Rather they are `Was the cost of those wind tunnel tests met by the LAF? And: `If not, who did pay for them and did they claim back this cost against their taxes citing the `charitable` nature of the LAF and Armstrong`s comeback?0 -
aurelio's current line of attack reminds me of how they finally nabbed Al Capone...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
aurelio wrote:A slim maybe, given that all the other accusations made by Manzano were repeated in full. So why was the response to the accusations made against USP/Discovery so different?
L'Equipe has withdrawn the article in it's entirety from its site but I think that US libel law allows for the repetition of a source done in good faith which might explain why some of it is still floating around the internet.
Honestly I've no idea why they'd keep in some bits but not others, and the only sensible answer is that it was on legal advice.
Their sources on Puerto would likely have been able to stand up the claims relating to Kelme and others as they were tied into the investigation that started in 2004 where as the claims about USPS/Disco predate that investigation and are unlikely to have been documented as neatly by the Spanish judiciary.0 -
This is hilarious. So the only source for that last sentence is a website called cyclingfansanonymous? Why not simply check the paper version of that L'Equipe edition at the Bibliotheque Francois Mitterand? Or would you suggest they would be capable of reprinting and replacing that one too?aurelio wrote:Most of the major US cycling news sites reported this interview in full, apart from that last sentence. Subsequently this part of the interview has disappeared from the whole internet, with the exception of the cyclingfansanonymous site. Even L`Equipe has now removed the article from it`s archives.
I've never liked Lance, and believe there's more reason to believe he has not been clean than not believe so, but this type of obsessed conspiracy theory thinking weakens the case against Lance, not strengthens it.
Anyway, why am I contributing to just another Lance threat? Anyone thinks Boom can be beaten in Gavere?0 -
I think Aurelio was probably referring to the Equipe online archives being amended. No doubt you can revisit the archives in Paris for the original copy but the point about texts being amended online post publication is valid, if the news was fit to publish since then, what's changed?0
-
Yes, I understand that. But what I'm saying is that you have to have a certain mindset to believe that when a sentence is only present on a blog somewhere on the internet and not in any of the publications of that interview anywhere else in any language, that suggests that all those other sources have deleted that sentence. To me it suggests that that sentence was perhaps added by the person writing that blog. So finding a paper version of last year's Equipe was a serious suggestion to demonstrate that that sentence was really part of the original interview. Otherwise it only aides the argument that the case against Lance is really just a mass of far-fetched conspiracy theories.0
-
Here is a scan of the original feature for you. So much for `far-fetched conspiricy theories`. :roll:FJS wrote:Yes, I understand that. But what I'm saying is that you have to have a certain mindset to believe that when a sentence is only present on a blog somewhere on the internet and not in any of the publications of that interview anywhere else in any language, that suggests that all those other sources have deleted that sentence. To me it suggests that that sentence was perhaps added by the person writing that blog. So finding a paper version of last year's Equipe was a serious suggestion to demonstrate that that sentence was really part of the original interview. Otherwise it only aides the argument that the case against Lance is really just a mass of far-fetched conspiracy theories.
http://www.multriman.com/news/riendechange.pdf0 -
I believe the internet term for that is 'pwned'.
0 -
aurelio wrote:
Here is a scan of the original feature for you. So much for `far-fetched conspiricy theories`. :roll:FJS wrote:Yes, I understand that. But what I'm saying is that you have to have a certain mindset to believe that when a sentence is only present on a blog somewhere on the internet and not in any of the publications of that interview anywhere else in any language, that suggests that all those other sources have deleted that sentence. To me it suggests that that sentence was perhaps added by the person writing that blog. So finding a paper version of last year's Equipe was a serious suggestion to demonstrate that that sentence was really part of the original interview. Otherwise it only aides the argument that the case against Lance is really just a mass of far-fetched conspiracy theories.
http://www.multriman.com/news/riendechange.pdf
and when you read the article there's a far longer list of people who'd have cause to have it removed from the Equipe website, starting with a rider sporting the colours of one of France's big banks, before USPS even got a look in. One rider in particular has been a bit handy with the legal notices of late to protect their reputation. Here's a clue: It's not Lance.
Kleber, online copies get amended all the time these days. We only notice because they've been cached and we've got copies available. It's fairly common practice and, in my experience, the defence is pre-emptive by putting it into the public domain online it becomes fair game to print. Almost every paper in the UK will try it or do it. Print and online versions will vary due to legal issues of supra-national judicial application - for example Mosley case - relating to where content is available to view.0 -
Which doesn`t explain why the article, or extracts from it, are still available all over the web from mainstream sources, all of which are missing that incriminating line about the activities of USP/Discovery. For example:leguape wrote:aurelio wrote:
Here is a scan of the original feature for you. So much for `far-fetched conspiricy theories`. :roll:FJS wrote:Yes, I understand that. But what I'm saying is that you have to have a certain mindset to believe that when a sentence is only present on a blog somewhere on the internet and not in any of the publications of that interview anywhere else in any language, that suggests that all those other sources have deleted that sentence. To me it suggests that that sentence was perhaps added by the person writing that blog. So finding a paper version of last year's Equipe was a serious suggestion to demonstrate that that sentence was really part of the original interview. Otherwise it only aides the argument that the case against Lance is really just a mass of far-fetched conspiracy theories.
http://www.multriman.com/news/riendechange.pdf
and when you read the article there's a far longer list of people who'd have cause to have it removed from the Equipe website, starting with a rider sporting the colours of one of France's big banks...
http://velonews.com/article/123750 -
I think there's a normal phrase, like "put this in your pipe and smoke it"andyp wrote:I believe the internet term for that is 'pwned'.
So we can see for real that Manzano made a claim and it's been deleted in other places. That may be normal leguape but it's another brick in the wall of suspicion regarding the Texan's performance.0 -
aurelio wrote:Most of the major US cycling news sites reported this interview in full, apart from that last sentence. Subsequently this part of the interview has disappeared from the whole internet, with the exception of the cyclingfansanonymous site. Even L`Equipe has now removed the article from it`s archives
Not quite - Der Speigel still carry the allegation but the name of the USP doctor has been removed.
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,487730,00.html'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
LangerDan wrote:aurelio wrote:Most of the major US cycling news sites reported this interview in full, apart from that last sentence. Subsequently this part of the interview has disappeared from the whole internet, with the exception of the cyclingfansanonymous site. Even L`Equipe has now removed the article from it`s archives
Not quite - Der Speigel still carry the allegation but the name of the USP doctor has been removed.
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,487730,00.html
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=3273#ancre2 still carries it. Did it ever occur that it might be the doctor themself who had got the hump about the claim?0 -
aurelio wrote:Here is a scan of the original feature for you. So much for `far-fetched conspiricy theories`. :roll:
http://www.multriman.com/news/riendechange.pdf
Excellent. Thank you very much, that's a lot clearer. I'm no defender of LA, on the contrary, but I would still prefer to remain informed by real evidence; as it was originally presented it appeared merely suggestive. But this scan makes it as solid as can be.0 -
Can anyone fine a mainstream English language site that gives the quote in full, especially a US based one...LangerDan wrote:aurelio wrote:Der Speigel still carry the allegation but the name of the USP doctor has been removed.
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,487730,00.htmlleguape wrote:http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=3273#ancre2 still carries it.
The coverage of the L`Equipe interview on cyclingnews.com was typically feeble...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... jun06news20 -
A couple of new questions:
- how do you feel about the rumours of a new team mate Vinokourov?
- Were Vino to join the team, do you think hell will freeze over before ASO invites Astana?0 -
Snap Kleber
Was just about to post the same.
I'm firmly for a Vino comeback. Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Rumours? If the Kazakh Minister for Sport is saying that Vino will ride for Astana then you've got to consider it more than a rumour surely?
http://cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news ... nov13news2
I bet Prudhomme can't believe his luck.0
