federal prosecutor appointed

bazbadger

Is 'Armstrong' the new 'Wiggle'?

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

Great :?

Dave_1 wrote:

plenty innocents paid for that and will for this federal stuff. They clearly have the whiff of something...someone beyond scum like Landis

And yet when Landis was busted you said:

Dave_1
Posted Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:56 pm

I'm glad Landis has been done..yet another signal to the pros that they can be caught. 1 year of the 2 year ban shopuld be spent in jail as Landis has messed with so many others cyclists employment prospects...he should be sued into bankruptcy. Surely the time has come for legal action by riders unions or whomever to get compensation. Am also a bit annoyed that this chap who managed Landis at Phonak..Lelangue..whoever he is or was...is now joining a new BMC team as a DS...this Lelangue fellow should be kept away from bike races until he's been on the witness stand in a criminal case and forced under oath to explain what he knows...no longer should a team director be able to walk away from a doping scandal

Double standard?

paulcuthbert

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Great :?

Dave_1 wrote:

plenty innocents paid for that and will for this federal stuff. They clearly have the whiff of something...someone beyond scum like Landis

And yet when Landis was busted you said:

Dave_1
Posted Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:56 pm

I'm glad Landis has been done..yet another signal to the pros that they can be caught. 1 year of the 2 year ban shopuld be spent in jail as Landis has messed with so many others cyclists employment prospects...he should be sued into bankruptcy. Surely the time has come for legal action by riders unions or whomever to get compensation. Am also a bit annoyed that this chap who managed Landis at Phonak..Lelangue..whoever he is or was...is now joining a new BMC team as a DS...this Lelangue fellow should be kept away from bike races until he's been on the witness stand in a criminal case and forced under oath to explain what he knows...no longer should a team director be able to walk away from a doping scandal

Double standard?

To dig up a post from 3 years ago is sad. Too much time on your hands?

Or are you "Biking[Woodward &]Bern[stein]ie" now?

andyp

paulcuthbert wrote:

To dig up a post from 3 years ago is sad. Too much time on your hands?

Or are you "Biking[Woodward &]Bern[stein]ie" now?

To be fair to BB, it's the kind of thing Dave_1 would do too.

iainf72

Didn't Bernie call Landis a c... a couple of months ago? And now he's one of the good guys. *shrug*

Bronzie

He certainly did*.............but to give it full context:

BikingBernie wrote:

True enough, but from what I can see Pantani was a vulnerable, sensitive and rather lost soul, not a self-serving, manipulative, lying c**t...

Of course he could redeem himself. All he has to do is come clean and tell all he knows about USP, Armstrong, motorcycles with refrigerated panniers and the rest...

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... 5&start=63

Floyd obviously hangs on BB's every word.

* - yup - too much time on my hands as well

Yorkman

You can't possibly compare Lance to Saddam, although there is little attempt at concealment of Lance's intentions to run for Governor of Texas, and ultimately the biggest job of them all, El Presidente of his country.

The investigators here will have to be absolutely spot on, such are the stakes.

bazbadger

paulcuthbert wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Great :?

Dave_1 wrote:

plenty innocents paid for that and will for this federal stuff. They clearly have the whiff of something...someone beyond scum like Landis

And yet when Landis was busted you said:

Dave_1
Posted Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:56 pm

I'm glad Landis has been done..yet another signal to the pros that they can be caught. 1 year of the 2 year ban shopuld be spent in jail as Landis has messed with so many others cyclists employment prospects...he should be sued into bankruptcy. Surely the time has come for legal action by riders unions or whomever to get compensation. Am also a bit annoyed that this chap who managed Landis at Phonak..Lelangue..whoever he is or was...is now joining a new BMC team as a DS...this Lelangue fellow should be kept away from bike races until he's been on the witness stand in a criminal case and forced under oath to explain what he knows...no longer should a team director be able to walk away from a doping scandal

Double standard?

To dig up a post from 3 years ago is sad. Too much time on your hands?

+1

Maybe Bernie should go and chill out in cake stop for a while to give us all a chance to recover from this quote bashing.

BikingBernie

BikingBernie wrote:

True enough, but from what I can see Pantani was a vulnerable, sensitive and rather lost soul, not a self-serving, manipulative, lying c**t...

Of course he could redeem himself. All he has to do is come clean and tell all he knows about USP, Armstrong, motorcycles with refrigerated panniers and the rest...

And of course Armstrong could also redeem himself by following the example set by Landis...

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Great :?

Dave_1 wrote:

plenty innocents paid for that and will for this federal stuff. They clearly have the whiff of something...someone beyond scum like Landis

And yet when Landis was busted you said:

Dave_1
Posted Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:56 pm

I'm glad Landis has been done..yet another signal to the pros that they can be caught. 1 year of the 2 year ban shopuld be spent in jail as Landis has messed with so many others cyclists employment prospects...he should be sued into bankruptcy. Surely the time has come for legal action by riders unions or whomever to get compensation. Am also a bit annoyed that this chap who managed Landis at Phonak..Lelangue..whoever he is or was...is now joining a new BMC team as a DS...this Lelangue fellow should be kept away from bike races until he's been on the witness stand in a criminal case and forced under oath to explain what he knows...no longer should a team director be able to walk away from a doping scandal

Double standard?

No double standard by me....time you and your brethren explain why you want one 7 time grand tour winner taken down with all the trauma it brings innocent pros-hundreds, while letting another go without some investigation. Double standards, look the other way is what the anti-Armstrong people on here are guilty of. Stop the double the standards and seek justice , not only for the actions by one but potentially (allegation) by both of them

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

time you and your brethren explain why you want one 7 time grand tour winner taken down with all the trauma it brings innocent pros-hundreds, while letting another go without some investigation.

Who? Indurain? I for one would be quite happy to see the truth about how Indurain won his 5 Tours come to light. In fact I have often pointed to some of the evidence on this very forum. For example:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... n#16229918

Hong on, in that thread you argue that Indurain was clean. Now I am confused as to what you actually think...

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

time you and your brethren explain why you want one 7 time grand tour winner taken down with all the trauma it brings innocent pros-hundreds, while letting another go without some investigation.

Who? Indurain? I for one would be quite happy to see the truth about how Indurain won his 5 Tours come to light. In fact I have often pointed to some of the evidence on this very forum. For example:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... n#16229918

Hong on, in that thread you argue that Indurain was clean. Now I am confused as to what you actually think...

MI might be clean...there's allegation and evidence...there's a difference as you've found out with your lockings, bannings on here since 2006

top_bhoy

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

dave_1

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

Retired or not, both have feats that look odd enough and 3 years apart that we can wonder if they had the science, the products, needed to pull those feats off. Why only Armstrong? You don't mind the possibility of one doping, its the other you want done? EPO started teamwide early 90s and both riders should, if they used it, be held to account...this is far different from the 1980s when no such doping product widely existed. Riis has admitted, ullrich's been caught, Pantani has paid, that's 1996,97,98 winner done, so on what moral grounds can we say...one other possible beneficiary of the science and product gets away while the other 4 get condemned, when we know who was first to possibly benefit from the new sceince, the product. Why can't you stop the double standards and stop looking the other way?

iainf72

There is no double standard. Indurian doped outside of the statute of limitations on doping offences. He cannot be punished for what he may have done. There is also no indication he committed and crime.

Information has been provided on possible doping infractions within the last 8 years. There is also a significant suggestion of a crime taking place.

Anyway, time for a quote

"You'd be surprised at the evidence people leave around when they think they're above reproach" - Jeff Novitzky

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

There is no double standard. Indurian doped outside of the statute of limitations on doping offences. He cannot be punished for what he may have done. There is also no indication he committed and crime.

Information has been provided on possible doping infractions within the last 8 years. There is also a significant suggestion of a crime taking place.

Anyway, time for a quote

"You'd be surprised at the evidence people leave around when they think they're above reproach" - Jeff Novitzky

yeah, there's some morality though, which you've forgotten with your convenient ignoring of one possible violator.... pls stop the legalistic pedantic rubbish above and deal with the moral issue. You are insulting my intelligence with the no evidence against indurain comment

ratsbeyfus

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

BikingBernie

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

Of course the biggest difference is that Indurain did not 'give hope to millions of cancer sufferers' by means of perpetrating 'the biggest fraud in the history of cycling', to paraphrase Greg Lemond.

---

If the world's most famous cancer survivor has been lying to us all these years, then Armstrong didn't just collect seven ill-gotten Tour de France titles. He'd be guilty of a deceit of unconscionable callousness because of the special constituency he eagerly represents.

Armstrong would be guilty of conning everyone who has used his stirring example or best-selling autobiography as a blueprint for confronting cancer in their lives.

He'd level a blow of unfathomable cruelty to the millions of survivors of the disease in the United States alone whom Armstrong often invokes -- sometimes with tears welling up in his eyes -- as the "silent army" that helped him soldier on from one cycling victory to the next.

To this day, thousands of Armstrong's fans make pilgrimages to his races just to catch a glimpse of him as he blurs by. His Livestrong foundation says it has sold more than 70 million yellow bracelets in his crusade to help fund cancer research. He once filmed a heart-tugging commercial that showed him flying through city streets on his bike, acknowledging cancer victims who had run to the windows of their hospital ward to wave excitedly at him. He has constantly presented himself as flesh-and-blood proof that no matter how dire or impossible things may seem, there's hope.

That's why the specter of Armstrong being a drug cheat feels worse -- and somehow different -- than all the other fallen heroes in a sports landscape awash with dopers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... ard/100528

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

yeah, there's some morality though, which you've forgotten with your convenient ignoring of one possible violator.... pls stop the legalistic pedantic rubbish above and deal with the moral issue. You are insulting my intelligence with the no evidence against indurain comment

There is no evidence Indurian committed a crime. That was my point. Of course there is strong suspicion he doped.

What's the point in trying to make it a moral issue? Isn't that getting away from the crux of the matter and trying to cloud it? If you stick to a legal and sporting rules framework you've got nice clear boundaries to work with.

dave_1

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

I agree, but he had to keep the omerta too which the Bugnos and Indurains of this world passed down to them...

ratsbeyfus

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

I agree, but he had to keep the omerta too which the Bugnos and Indurains of this world passed down to them...

and?

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

yeah, there's some morality though, which you've forgotten with your convenient ignoring of one possible violator.... pls stop the legalistic pedantic rubbish above and deal with the moral issue. You are insulting my intelligence with the no evidence against indurain comment

There is no evidence Indurian committed a crime. That was my point. Of course there is strong suspicion he doped.

What's the point in trying to make it a moral issue? Isn't that getting away from the crux of the matter and trying to cloud it? If you stick to a legal and sporting rules framework you've got nice clear boundaries to work with.

cause you people make a moral issue out of Lance Armstrong's behaviour everyday on here. Stop the legalistic stuff,...forgot statutes of whatever...and face the facts...you are willing to let one person keep his cred as a 7 time grand tour winner and hope for the other one to be jailed for using the same product and dr. Stop shifting the debate. It's morally wrong to draw the line where you do when we know when EPO use became rife and when fans got defrauded....which you think was since 1999 clearly

dave_1

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

I agree, but he had to keep the omerta too which the Bugnos and Indurains of this world passed down to them...

and?

don't persecute one rider

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

I agree, but he had to keep the omerta too which the Bugnos and Indurains of this world passed down to them...

But why did he have to 'keep the omerta'? Because his 'will to power' was such that he himself resorted to doping in order to win. The only ones who have any claim to the moral high ground in this are those who refused to compromise their principles. You know, the sort of people who Armstrong tried to hound out of the sport, like Bassons...

ratsbeyfus

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

I agree, but he had to keep the omerta too which the Bugnos and Indurains of this world passed down to them...

and?

don't persecute one rider

Prosecute anyone and everyone that there is sufficient evidence for. It's just I wasn't sold a myth by any of the others, so I freely admit that the prospect of LA getting his just desserts tickles me. If it's 'persecution' so be it - I'm really not gonna shed any tears for him.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

don't persecute one rider

I think you will find that many riders have be 'persecuted' (as you put it) for doping. Some, unlike Armstrong, have even been actively pursued by the UCI and banned. In any case, there are plenty of good reasons why Armstrong deserves greater condemnation, as has already been mentioned.

dave_1

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I think few people have double standards with MI and LA, doping is cheating, endof. If MI has doped then he should be investigated as well - even although he retired several years ago. The difference between the MI and LA cases are huge however. The problem LA has is that a) he is a current rider b) allegations of a specific nature have been made about LA. If LA had stayed retired I don't think there would be as much interest to investigate. This is of his own making in so many ways.

The thing that makes LA worse in my opinion is the way that he suggests cancer 're-shaped' and transformed him from a non-gt contendor to a multiple tour winner. A disgusting myth that he has actively promoted in his books.

I agree, but he had to keep the omerta too which the Bugnos and Indurains of this world passed down to them...

and?

don't persecute one rider

Prosecute anyone and everyone that there is sufficient evidence for. It's just I wasn't sold a myth by any of the others, so I freely admit that the prospect of LA getting his just desserts tickles me. If it's 'persecution' so be it - I'm really not gonna shed any tears for him.

Anyone and everyone eh?,...that would be a lot of court cases. You're for persecuting one when collectively they are responsible-both 7 time Grand tour winners, not one. You think one merits prosecution when evidence exists against both.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

cause you people make a moral issue out of Lance Armstrong's behaviour everyday on here. Stop the legalistic stuff,...forgot statutes of whatever...and face the facts...you are willing to let one person keep his cred as a 7 time grand tour winner and hope for the other one to be jailed for using the same product and dr. Stop shifting the debate. It's morally wrong to draw the line where you do when we know when EPO use became rife and when fans got defrauded....which you think was since 1999 clearly

Here's my position. If they find Armstrong did something naughty in the 2002 Tour, he loses the title. If they don't, he keeps it. His 99,00,01 titles are safe as the time period is past. If it gets to the end of July, his 02 win is safe. They may have question marks over them but then so do Indurians.

I accept that, it is what it is. Seems pretty fair to me.

Armstrong climbed higher up on the back of his fame and success. It stands to reason that if he falls it will be worse than for other people. I don't remember these discussions during the downfall of Ullrich / Riis / Basso / Heras etc.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

don't persecute one rider

I think you will find that many riders have be 'persecuted' (as you put it) for doping. Some, unlike Armstrong, have even been actively pursued by the UCI and banned. In any case, there are plenty of good reasons why Armstrong deserves greater condemnation, as has already been mentioned.

there are no good reasons for allowing one 7 time GT winner to keep his credibility and the other to lose his when both used the same product in the same decade (allegation) and dr.

ratsbeyfus

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone and everyone eh?,...that would be a lot of court cases.

So be it! You seem to be a little confused Dave... prosecute anyone who there is sufficient evidence for (Big Mig, Big George, Big Deal) I don't really care... as I said, the one I'd really like to see exposed more than any other is Lance for the reasons already stated.