AFLD v Armstrong

SpaceJunk

rockmount wrote:

I think the French are so afraid that LA may win again that they will go to any lengths to ensure he doesn't. The only thing they will succeed in doing however is finally removing any remaining credibility the TDF still has. Exclusion due to some trumped up technicality, with still absolutely no evidence of any doping activity, will not convince anyone of sound mind.

Hey rockmount, when did the TdF start to lose it's credibility? I personally would say from the late 1990's onwards.

SpaceJunk

rockmount wrote:

I think the French are so afraid that LA may win again that they will go to any lengths to ensure he doesn't. The only thing they will succeed in doing however is finally removing any remaining credibility the TDF still has. Exclusion due to some trumped up technicality, with still absolutely no evidence of any doping activity, will not convince anyone of sound mind.

The fact that LA's samples were all okay doesn't make this a 'trumped up technicality'.

If it is proven that LA broke the rules he should be penalised according to the rule book.

Other wise one could start making a case for Michael Pollentier from the 1978 TdF. Sure he tried to pass off someone else's urine as his when dope tested and hence broke the rules.

But when the investigators eventually tested his urine they found nothing wrong with it. Should Pollentier have been able to stay in the 78 Tour?

dilemna

aurelio wrote:

leguape wrote:

If you are wealthy it is what you do to protect your brand, simple as.

And in many ways that's what the spin and propaganda surrounding the 'Armstrong myth' is all about, not 'raising cancer awareness', or bike racing, but protecting the corporate value of a 'brand', both to the benefit of Armstrong and all those corporations who pay big bucks to exploit his image. In fact his it is no secret that his 'brand managers' regard him having had cancer as being a wholly positive thing, in that it gives him a unique selling point that immeasurably strengthens the value of his ‘brand’, and the LAF itself can be seen as just one way in which the value of his ‘brand’ is maintained.

As Armstrong himself might put it ‘It’s not about the bike’.

:roll: Christ you're bitter and twisted and jealous. Name anyone who wouldn't seek to protect their image, reputation, product or achievements from sportsmen to rockstars, scientists to writers, industrialists to politicians and any other organisation from defamatory statements such as yours. I wonder how you would react and cope if you were told you had the C word and such an aggressive form of it?

eh

Anyone who thinks the TDF lost credibility in the 90's doesn't understand the TDF. The TDF has always had cheaters, drugs, controversy etc. its part of what it makes it what it is, a top soap opera with great scenery. Oh and if you happen to live on the route a chance to have the day off and in joy the summer.

As for LA winning the TDF hah pull the other one, he hasn't shown any form to suggest it is possible and will have had the worst build up in terms of training of his whole career. In terms of race performance he is yesterdays newspaper.

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

rockmount wrote:

Are you aware for instance that cancer survival rates in the UK are the lowest in Europe ?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. England is a quasi-fascist shithole and thank goodness I no longer live there.

Pray tell, what is the cancer survival rate for Americans without healthcare insurance?

Also, how on earth does seeing Armstrong on a bike impart any sort of detailed knowledge about cancer in anyone?

Careful now. Just WALK to the edge and LOOK over if you must. Don't RUN & JUMP.


Dennis Noward

aurelio_-_banned

dilemna wrote:

aurelio wrote:

leguape wrote:

If you are wealthy it is what you do to protect your brand, simple as.

And in many ways that's what the spin and propaganda surrounding the 'Armstrong myth' is all about, not 'raising cancer awareness', or bike racing, but protecting the corporate value of a 'brand', both to the benefit of Armstrong and all those corporations who pay big bucks to exploit his image. In fact his it is no secret that his 'brand managers' regard him having had cancer as being a wholly positive thing, in that it gives him a unique selling point that immeasurably strengthens the value of his ‘brand’, and the LAF itself can be seen as just one way in which the value of his ‘brand’ is maintained.

As Armstrong himself might put it ‘It’s not about the bike’.

Christ you're bitter and twisted and jealous. Name anyone who wouldn't seek to protect their image, reputation, product or achievements from sportsmen to rockstars, scientists to writers, industrialists to politicians and any other organisation from defamatory statements such as yours. I wonder how you would react and cope if you were told you had the C word and such an aggressive form of it?

Perhaps I would get a manager who would come out with statements such as the following:

As he has won, says his friend, lawyer, and agent, Bill Stapleton, the Lance Armstrong brand has evolved. "In the beginning we had this brand of brash Texan, interesting European sport, a phenomenon. Then you layered in cancer survivor, which broadened and deepened the brand.

As to protecting someone's 'image, reputation, product or achievements' from 'defamatory statements', I would say that when those statements are supported by a wide range of credible evidence, the real concern is the way the rich and powerful are able to exploit the law in order to bully others into submission and to substitute the truth with PR spin and fallacious corporate-backed propaganda.

aurelio_-_banned

eh wrote:

As for LA winning the TDF hah pull the other one, he hasn't shown any form to suggest it is possible and will have had the worst build up in terms of training of his whole career. In terms of race performance he is yesterdays newspaper.

And possibly looking for a way out before he is embarrassed?

I wonder why he moved to France to train in the first place, given the supposed constant danger he is in whilst he is there. :roll:

blazing_saddles

I think pacing is in order here.
Otherwise, posters on this subject can expect to suffer "the bonk". :P

AFLD decision expected in May
French Anti-Doping Agency AFLD is currently deciding whether or not to open a disciplinary procedure against Lance Armstrong. According to L'Equipe, it will take several weeks before the cycling world will know if the five-time Tour de France winner will be sanctioned for delaying an anti-doping control some three weeks ago.

The decision to open or not to open disciplinary proceedings should be taken in "early May" according to the paper.

Should do wonders for his Giro preparation. :roll:

rockmount

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think pacing is in order here.
Otherwise, posters on this subject can expect to suffer "the bonk". :P

I didn't expect the peleton to be ready for that breakaway !!

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

dilemna wrote:

aurelio wrote:

leguape wrote:

If you are wealthy it is what you do to protect your brand, simple as.

And in many ways that's what the spin and propaganda surrounding the 'Armstrong myth' is all about, not 'raising cancer awareness', or bike racing, but protecting the corporate value of a 'brand', both to the benefit of Armstrong and all those corporations who pay big bucks to exploit his image. In fact his it is no secret that his 'brand managers' regard him having had cancer as being a wholly positive thing, in that it gives him a unique selling point that immeasurably strengthens the value of his ‘brand’, and the LAF itself can be seen as just one way in which the value of his ‘brand’ is maintained.

As Armstrong himself might put it ‘It’s not about the bike’.

Christ you're bitter and twisted and jealous. Name anyone who wouldn't seek to protect their image, reputation, product or achievements from sportsmen to rockstars, scientists to writers, industrialists to politicians and any other organisation from defamatory statements such as yours. I wonder how you would react and cope if you were told you had the C word and such an aggressive form of it?

Perhaps I would get a manager who would come out with statements such as the following:

As he has won, says his friend, lawyer, and agent, Bill Stapleton, the Lance Armstrong brand has evolved. "In the beginning we had this brand of brash Texan, interesting European sport, a phenomenon. Then you layered in cancer survivor, which broadened and deepened the brand.

As to protecting someone's 'image, reputation, product or achievements' from 'defamatory statements', I would say that when those statements are supported by a wide range of credible evidence, the real concern is the way the rich and powerful are able to exploit the law in order to bully others into submission and to substitute the truth with PR spin and fallacious corporate-backed propaganda.

I don't think you give people enough credit for having brains of their own. Not everybody out here falls for everything that they read or hear about, and Lance "news" is no exception. People don't just blindly follow politicians, movie stars, and celebrities(well some do). Most of us are able to see, at least a little bit, through the smoke, mirrors,
and bullsh*t that these people put out for our consumption.
To be honest I could care less what some persons reason's are for trying to put cancer in the spotlight and care even less than that if said person smoked a joint in the 60's or used EPO in 99. If they put cancer in the public eye they are doing the right thing as
far as I'm concerned. The rest of their life may not be so perfect but at least they are doing some good.

Dennis Noward

cougie

That whole washing powder up your willy thing - doesnt that get rid of any proteins - which is also a very dodgy result ?

I can understand why LA would want to verify the ID of any old tester that turns up on his doorstep. I find it hard to believe that he thinks its OK to leave his sight though - how many tests has he had ?

So yeah - bit silly of Lance to go off and shower - but if the tests are clear - storm in a tea cup ?

aurelio_-_banned

dennisn wrote:

To be honest I could care less what some persons reason's are for trying to put cancer in the spotlight and care even less than that if said person smoked a joint in the 60's or used EPO in 99. If they put cancer in the public eye they are doing the right thing as far as I'm concerned. The rest of their life may not be so perfect but at least they are doing some good.

Some good, maybe, but nowhere near as much good as he does for his own bank balance, nor anywhere as much ‘good’ as he does for companies like Nike by promoting their over-priced, over-marketed and sweated products.

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

To be honest I could care less what some persons reason's are for trying to put cancer in the spotlight and care even less than that if said person smoked a joint in the 60's or used EPO in 99. If they put cancer in the public eye they are doing the right thing as far as I'm concerned. The rest of their life may not be so perfect but at least they are doing some good.

Some good, maybe, but nowhere near as much good as he does for his own bank balance, nor anywhere as much ‘good’ as he does for companies like Nike by promoting their over-priced, over-marketed and sweated products.

I see. I really do. Finally.

Dennis Noward

donrhummy

There is one thing I haven't seen anyone mention: if this does go to trial, there technically IS a witness to the event: Johan Bruyneel. Granted, he has ties to Lance but he's still a witness. The AFLD can state their case for what happened but it's not just a he said she said, it's their word against Lance AND a witness.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Livingstrong

markwalker wrote:

Yes Aurelio,

that was another interesting article, I still find it difficult to believe that there are people who have read all of this stuff who still think hes clean!

Mark

What we believe or don't believe it does not matter. What really matters is how much good Lance Armstrong has brought to this beautiful sport of cycling, that he has won 7 straight Tour de France and that he has NEVER been proven guilty. That is what matters.

Pooter

micron wrote:

Leguape, off topic, but you do know that Armstrong's supposed victory against the Sunday Times was overturned on appeal? It meant Armstrong's only recourse was to the highest court in the land - don't you think we'd have heard about it if he'd taken the case to the Lords?

No you're mistaken. LA won in the High Court QBD 30/6/06. It never went to the Court of Appeal.

Kléber

Livingstrong wrote:

What really matters is how much good Lance Armstrong has brought to this beautiful sport of cycling, that he has won 7 straight Tour de France and that he has NEVER been proven guilty. That is what matters.

I think that's the view from afar.

Look closer and some might someone who wasn't so good for cycling, he might have shifted a lot of Treks in the US but some might see a bully who blacklisted journalists and on doping, a thick cloud of suspicion and rumour that dogs the sport and divides fans to this day. Some might have believed the 1999 Tour to have been a chance for renewal but the relentless culture of doping by some forced others into an "arms race" mentality and perpetuated the mess that the sport sits in to this day. Of course, one rider isn't to blame for all the problems of pro cycling but he's emblematic as the Tour winner, the champion who calls Dr Ferrari a friend. All this belongs to the past.

But this spat with AFLD rears ugly memories of trying to whip up anti-French feelings, of false victimhood status and unrepentant arrogance.

Kléber

Pooter wrote:

No you're mistaken. LA won in the High Court QBD 30/6/06. It never went to the Court of Appeal.

True but the outcome and ruling by the judge was actually quite subtle and nuanced, it was not a big exoneration. If you enjoy legal history, you can read a summary of the outcome here: http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases.asp?id=65

simon_e

Philip S wrote:

This story's so big it even made the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning.

McQuaid sounded pathetic.

iPlayer link. The piece is at 2 hrs 27mins (sorry don't know how to link it so it jumps there, though I've seen it done before).

Once again the cycling itself goes unreported while doping and/or Lance fills the stage

iainf72

Livingstrong wrote:

What we believe or don't believe it does not matter. What really matters is how much good Lance Armstrong has brought to this beautiful sport of cycling, that he has won 7 straight Tour de France and that he has NEVER been proven guilty. That is what matters.

What good do you speak of?

Yesterday I got out some DVD's of the Tour in the 80's and watched them. That was the era I first found that bike and if you look at it, it's almost a different sport - Guys slack mouthed, gasping for breath and suffering in the mountains, falling off the bike at stage end etc etc. And more over, approachable by the fans. What do we have in the 90s til now? Climbing with mouth shut? Surrounded by bodyguards?

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

Livingstrong wrote:

What we believe or don't believe it does not matter. What really matters is how much good Lance Armstrong has brought to this beautiful sport of cycling, that he has won 7 straight Tour de France and that he has NEVER been proven guilty. That is what matters.

What good do you speak of?

Yesterday I got out some DVD's of the Tour in the 80's and watched them. That was the era I first found that bike and if you look at it, it's almost a different sport - Guys slack mouthed, gasping for breath and suffering in the mountains, falling off the bike at stage end etc etc. And more over, approachable by the fans. What do we have in the 90s til now? Climbing with mouth shut? Surrounded by bodyguards?

Doesnt that apply to a lot of endurance type sports though ? Sports science and training methods etc are worlds apart from the 80s to the present day. Not saying drugs arent a factor as youre implying but its not as clear cut as youre making out.As for bodygurads other sports such as football players in the 70s were accesible today they are suurounded by bodyguards etc so cycling superstars are only mirroring that really. Not great but no different from other sports.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Livingstrong wrote:

And more over, approachable by the fans. What do we have in the 90s til now? Climbing with mouth shut? Surrounded by bodyguards?

As far as "fans" go I don't blame anyone for having bodyguards. There is no telling what some people will do to get close to their "heroes". I wouldn't want some of them around me.
All it takes is one "nut case" fan. i.e. John Lennon.

Dennis Noward

andyp

dennisn wrote:

As far as "fans" go I don't blame anyone for having bodyguards. There is no telling what some people will do to get close to their "heroes". I wouldn't want some of them around me.
All it takes is one "nut case" fan. i.e. John Lennon.

It's never, ever happened in cycling though. The sport is well known for allowing fans to get close to the riders. It still happens at most races.

dennisn

Kléber wrote:

Livingstrong wrote:

...... the champion who calls Dr Ferrari a friend. All this belongs to the past.

I have friends and if they do something wrong more than likely they will remain my friends.
If Dr. F. is a friend of his, so be it. Doesn't make Lance guilty of anything. I have a friend who spent 10 years in the slam for various gambling, shall we say, "problems" and he's still my friend and I didn't have a damn thing to do with his activities. No, I don't buy guilt by association, IF, that's what you're trying to say.

Dennis Noward

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

I have friends and if they do something wrong more than likely they will remain my friends.
If Dr. F. is a friend of his, so be it. Doesn't make Lance guilty of anything. I have a friend who spent 10 years in the slam for various gambling, shall we say, "problems" and he's still my friend and I didn't have a damn thing to do with his activities. No, I don't buy guilt by association, IF, that's what you're trying to say.

So he paid 10% of his earning to Dr F to be his friend? Now, I don't have many friends but perhaps it's because I'm not prepared to make a financial commitment

dennisn

andyp wrote:

dennisn wrote:

As far as "fans" go I don't blame anyone for having bodyguards. There is no telling what some people will do to get close to their "heroes". I wouldn't want some of them around me.
All it takes is one "nut case" fan. i.e. John Lennon.

It's never, ever happened in cycling though. The sport is well known for allowing fans to get close to the riders. It still happens at most races.

I know getting close is part of the game(so to speak). Yet I'm also a believer in "What can happen will". I don't blame the riders for being somewhat paranoid in that respect. Same thing at "rock shows" you never know what some wacko is going to do.

Dennis Noward

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I have friends and if they do something wrong more than likely they will remain my friends.
If Dr. F. is a friend of his, so be it. Doesn't make Lance guilty of anything. I have a friend who spent 10 years in the slam for various gambling, shall we say, "problems" and he's still my friend and I didn't have a damn thing to do with his activities. No, I don't buy guilt by association, IF, that's what you're trying to say.

So he paid 10% of his earning to Dr F to be his friend? Now, I don't have many friends but perhaps it's because I'm not prepared to make a financial commitment

I don't follow those things as closely as yourself. I have given my doctor money for services rendered and consider him a "friend" of my, although we don't see each other socially much. Read what you will into why he gave him 10%. If that's true? Like I say I don't follow it that close.

Dennis Noward

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

I don't follow those things as closely as yourself. I have given my doctor money for services rendered and consider him a "friend" of my, although we don't see each other socially much. Read what you will into why he gave him 10%. If that's true? Like I say I don't follow it that close.

I think in this case, your President perhaps says it best

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/03 ... mas-p.html

Around 4 minutes

finchy

andyp wrote:

It's never, ever happened in cycling though. The sport is well known for allowing fans to get close to the riders. It still happens at most races.

There was an incident back in the '40s, I think, in which the Belgian team was pelted with stones by French fans. The team naturally quit in disgust.

With regard to top level cyclists, I don't quite understand the "need" for a bodyguard, especially at races, which are crawling with police, officials, media and fans, all of whom would be able to jump in and prevent anything happening just as quickly as a bodyguard.

Pooter

Kléber wrote:

Pooter wrote:

No you're mistaken. LA won in the High Court QBD 30/6/06. It never went to the Court of Appeal.

True but the outcome and ruling by the judge was actually quite subtle and nuanced, it was not a big exoneration. If you enjoy legal history, you can read a summary of the outcome here: http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases.asp?id=65

That's a summary written by the losing barristers' chambers who represented The Times/Walsh. Not exactly a neutral source.