WSJ Part 2

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

"He lost his balance", "He turned round to apologise", "Armstrong did nothing wrong there, just as a car driver who runs someone down from behind has done nothing wrong", "It's alright to act like a prick if you get out-sprinted by a couple of second-rate Frenchmen and other assorted 'no marks' after sitting on their wheel all day".

I can hardly wait to hear what the Armstrong fanboys are going to come out with once he is forced into admitting that he doped his way to his 7 Tour 'wins'. It's going to be hilarious!

F*ck me LA really gets into your head doesnt he..........seems to eat you up inside, so much pent up hatred. You really need to get a grip you are coming across as old bitter individual.

Come on, I've never met the guy! It's people like you that I am laughing at. You are endlessly entertaining.

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

"He lost his balance", "He turned round to apologise", "Armstrong did nothing wrong there, just as a car driver who runs someone down from behind has done nothing wrong", "It's alright to act like a prick if you get out-sprinted by a couple of second-rate Frenchmen and other assorted 'no marks' after sitting on their wheel all day".

I can hardly wait to hear what the Armstrong fanboys are going to come out with once he is forced into admitting that he doped his way to his 7 Tour 'wins'. It's going to be hilarious!

F*ck me LA really gets into your head doesnt he..........seems to eat you up inside, so much pent up hatred. You really need to get a grip you are coming across as old bitter individual.

Come on, I've never met the guy! It's people like you that I am laughing at. You are endlessly entertaining.

Laughing at me ? i am not the bitter individual consumed with hate over a man involved in a sport you have no time for , or least you claim not to have any time for it yet you mysteriously made your way to a MT finish last week :roll:

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

Laughing at me ? i am not the bitter individual consumed with hate over a man involved in a sport you have no time for

If believing that makes you happy, and makes it easier to deal with the coming fall of your hero, far be it from me to point out that you are talking bollocks!

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Laughing at me ? i am not the bitter individual consumed with hate over a man involved in a sport you have no time for

If believing that makes you happy, and makes it easier to deal with the coming fall of your hero, far be it from me to point out that you are talking bollocks!

I dont have any hero in this sport or any other ,likewise i am not consumed by hate nor full of bile over somebody involved in a sport i apparently dont have any time for :roll:

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

I dont have any hero in this sport or any other ,likewise i am not consumed by hate nor full of bile over somebody involved in a sport i apparently dont have any time for

That's two of us then, we ought to meet up for a beer sometime.

BikingBernie

The scales continue to fall from America's eyes...

Armstrong, 38, the cancer survivor who has repeatedly denied any involvement with performance-enhancing drugs, said last week that he would cooperate with a "fair investigation" into the damaging allegations made in May by his former teammate Floyd Landis, who himself was stripped of his 2006 Tour title for doping.

But, as is Armstrong's often-belligerent way, he delivered this caveat:

"As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we'll be happy to cooperate, but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt," Armstrong said. "I've done too many good things for too many people."

It's such an interesting way for Armstrong to look at things, basically saying he's too important as a cultural icon to endure the kind of scrutiny that some for years have thought he most definitely deserves.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... rong_N.htm

jonnycon

BikingBernie wrote:

The scales continue to fall from America's eyes...

Armstrong, 38, the cancer survivor who has repeatedly denied any involvement with performance-enhancing drugs, said last week that he would cooperate with a "fair investigation" into the damaging allegations made in May by his former teammate Floyd Landis, who himself was stripped of his 2006 Tour title for doping.

But, as is Armstrong's often-belligerent way, he delivered this caveat:

"As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we'll be happy to cooperate, but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt," Armstrong said. "I've done too many good things for too many people."

It's such an interesting way for Armstrong to look at things, basically saying he's too important as a cultural icon to endure the kind of scrutiny that some for years have thought he most definitely deserves.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... rong_N.htm

Where is the beligerence here ? Given that Armstrong has been subject to rumour and speculation throughout his career I don't understand how saying "As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we'll be happy to cooperate, but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt," as representative of his often-beligerent way, unless of course the witch hunt is already underway& I've just not subscribed to it yet.And is anyone aware of any evidence whatsoever that isn't anecdotal or from the mouths of already convicted dopers (not worth the paper it's written on) that will convict LA ?

paulcuthbert

jonnycon wrote:

And is anyone aware of any evidence whatsoever that isn't anecdotal or from the mouths of already convicted dopers (not worth the paper it's written on) that will convict LA ?

There's some sort of graph that people like to post. It's got green and red dots on it.

Pretty sure people only use it to try and look intelligent though...

cajun_cyclist

It is a tiny bit "beligerent' I guess is the word to use the term 'witch hunt' with Federal Investigators, the 'Feds' but it was probably something that needed to be said as well. You don't want to see 'fishing expeditions', needs to be a cut and dry objective. That I understand. Yet, it is a simple question, doped or not.

It's like if one ever has to deal with the Police, to me, it's always best to show them the utmost respect, "yes sir, no sir" and you'll have to deal with them for a lot shorter time.

---

I don't care to come down on one side or the other here, yet, the whole Lance saga has always had drama, has had a real element of interest, "did he or didn't he?"

The same goes for a few other athletes with super human triumphs, Usain Bolt for one, yet, it took his record run in the Olympics to get people talking but once things cool down a little, it's not really on people's minds and it seems Usain is relatively low-key but just read some runner's forums and you will see this kind of issue trotted out in regards to a lot of track and marathon performers.

iainf72

A lot of comments from Don Catlin in this one

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -1,00.html

Pretty balanced I'd say, something for the faithful and something for the ALB. If neither of those float your boat, there is also a link to the Top 10 Militant animals.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

A lot of comments from Don Catlin in this one

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -1,00.html

Pretty balanced I'd say, something for the faithful and something for the ALB. If neither of those float your boat, there is also a link to the Top 10 Militant animals.

Or you could check out their current most popular story...

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

A lot of comments from Don Catlin in this one

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -1,00.html

Pretty balanced I'd say, something for the faithful and something for the ALB. If neither of those float your boat, there is also a link to the Top 10 Militant animals.

That was a good article. The Militant animals, I mean. This Armstrong stuff is boring the tits off me. But Taliban monkeys, dogs in gas mask, flaming pigs and kamikaze bats - that's a story.

Birillo

A lot of comments from Don Catlin in this one

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -1,00.html

Pretty balanced I'd say, something for the faithful and something for the ALB. If neither of those float your boat, there is also a link to the Top 10 Militant animals.

and the introduction of a new word to the English language: "pled".

dennisn

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Yet, it is a simple question, doped or not.

Are the "feds" interested in whether LA doped or not???? I mean, from their perspective,
aren't they looking into more serious charges? Whereas if LA used or didn't use this or that drug may be something that even if they found out he did / didn't, use / not use, whatever, it's not something they have jurisdiction over? It would be odd, if, at the end of all this, the people who simply want him busted for drugs, don't get that and they are left
still moaning and groaning that "he doped".

paulcuthbert

dennisn wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Yet, it is a simple question, doped or not.

Are the "feds" interested in whether LA doped or not???? I mean, from their perspective,
aren't they looking into more serious charges?

As is my understanding, they're investigating whether the USPS team doped, and if so whether the team used what was effectively government money to pay for their doping programme - as Landis alleged. Whilst doping would constitute sporting fraud, that's not what the federal investigation is interested in.

What they want to know is if first of all the Landis allegations are true, and if so, where the money came from to fund the team doping. If they're found to have doped and they used money that was meant for the team from the U.S. government (since the U.S. Postal Service is a federal funded institution in America) this constitutes fraud. That's what the charges will be - I don't know if they'll be levelled at any particular individual though.

cajun_cyclist

Seeing DennisN's and PaulCuthbert's statements, I will just say,

It seems it CAN get to be a question of SEMANTICS, so I basically mean with whatever they are trying to catch on these guys, doping, selling bikes, etc.

But I will say, they have to watch out that this is not a "fishing exhibition" because face it, with guys who rode for US Postal and who after there departures, ended up getting caught on something, ex. Heras, it seems likely investigators will stumble on wrongdoing of some sorts, so they need to have a cut and dry objective that they are trying to get at.

Just like the Pro Baseball investigation of a few years ago under was it Arlen Spector??

pollys_bott

jonnycon wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

The scales continue to fall from America's eyes...

Armstrong, 38, the cancer survivor who has repeatedly denied any involvement with performance-enhancing drugs, said last week that he would cooperate with a "fair investigation" into the damaging allegations made in May by his former teammate Floyd Landis, who himself was stripped of his 2006 Tour title for doping.

But, as is Armstrong's often-belligerent way, he delivered this caveat:

"As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we'll be happy to cooperate, but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt," Armstrong said. "I've done too many good things for too many people."

It's such an interesting way for Armstrong to look at things, basically saying he's too important as a cultural icon to endure the kind of scrutiny that some for years have thought he most definitely deserves.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... rong_N.htm

Where is the beligerence here ? Given that Armstrong has been subject to rumour and speculation throughout his career I don't understand how saying "As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we'll be happy to cooperate, but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt," as representative of his often-beligerent way, unless of course the witch hunt is already underway& I've just not subscribed to it yet.And is anyone aware of any evidence whatsoever that isn't anecdotal or from the mouths of already convicted dopers (not worth the paper it's written on) that will convict LA ?

How about the "I've done too many good things for too many people."?

BikingBernie

Interesting how many articles are echoing the 'leave Armstrong alone, it's a waste of public money' line. Desperate times calling for desperate tactics I suppose. Given Armstrong's huge wealth, almost certainly amassed with the aid of fraudulent practices, why shouldn't any penalty levied be set at a level that would cover all the costs of the investigation? After all, much the same happened, to Armstrong's benefit, when he accused the Times of 'libel'...

pollys_bott

jonnycon wrote:

any evidence whatsoever that isn't anecdotal or from the mouths of already convicted dopers (not worth the paper it's written on) that will convict LA ?

Eh? So if David Millar gives an interview in which he details how he took EPO yet beat the testing system none of it is credible? If Roberto Heras and Tyler Hamilton stand up in a courtroom and testify that USPS were on an EPO programme then that doesn't count as evidence? If Alejandro Valverde and Ivan Basso spill the beans about Dr Fuentes you wouldn't believe them?

pollys_bott

paulcuthbert wrote:

dennisn wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Yet, it is a simple question, doped or not.

Are the "feds" interested in whether LA doped or not???? I mean, from their perspective,
aren't they looking into more serious charges?

As is my understanding, they're investigating whether the USPS team doped, and if so whether the team used what was effectively government money to pay for their doping programme - as Landis alleged. Whilst doping would constitute sporting fraud, that's not what the federal investigation is interested in.

What they want to know is if first of all the Landis allegations are true, and if so, where the money came from to fund the team doping. If they're found to have doped and they used money that was meant for the team from the U.S. government (since the U.S. Postal Service is a federal funded institution in America) this constitutes fraud. That's what the charges will be - I don't know if they'll be levelled at any particular individual though.

Well, if it transpires that fraud was committed then the Feds aren't going to say 'OK, we've established that fraud happened, now let's go get some do-nuts.' Surely they'll follow evidence leading to someone making the decision for the team to dope? I have no idea how pro teams are set up management wise but I'm guessing the man at the top of the chain of command is the DS, no?

paulcuthbert

Pollys Bott wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

I don't know if they'll be levelled at any particular individual though.

Well, if it transpires that fraud was committed then the Feds aren't going to say 'OK, we've established that fraud happened, now let's go get some do-nuts.' Surely they'll follow evidence leading to someone making the decision for the team to dope? I have no idea how pro teams are set up management wise but I'm guessing the man at the top of the chain of command is the DS, no?

That's why I wasn't sure. I know little and care little about the politics and business side of bike racing.

I'm more like "look at the effort and pain written all over his face", or "uh, look at that bike".

micron

I always find that an hilarious argument - "I don't believe anything you have to say about doping because you doped".

ratsbeyfus

And it looks like Hamilton is going to have a chance to put his side of things...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4979/Hamiltons-legal-team-in-discussions-about-giving-evidence-in-Landis-enquiry.aspx

I wonder if his bro' will be giving evidence too?

deal

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=5405134

Landis Interview tonight on ABC's nightline

ratsbeyfus

deal wrote:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5405134

Landis Interview tonight on ABC's nightline

I love the fact that LA's lawyer trots out the 'sour milk' defence... genius!

RichN95.

Any more information about the Taliban trained, Machine Gun toting Monkeys? In the grand scheme of things, they may be more of a serious issue - if true.

These monkeys may kill someone. The Lance investigation - probably a fine at most. Seriously - get your priorities straight.



THIS IS A MONKEY WITH A GUN! They have no conscience. They have no shame. They have no fear. And they absolutely will not stop until you are dead.

One moment it's 'Betsy Andreu testified that..." and the next it's "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! "

Focus people.

ratsbeyfus

Lucky it's on a leash, 'coz you wouldn't want to lose one of those down the park.

cajun_cyclist

deal wrote:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5405134

Landis Interview tonight on ABC's nightline

Yep, there it was, taped interview, also taped interview segments with Emma O'Reilly and Betsy Andreau, rather brief. Perhaps nothing really new was said but good to see information we otherwise just read about said with real people talking about it.

Something that I may have heard vaguely about though that was mentioned was in 2004, Floyd says the whole US Postal Team Bus went off into it sounds like an obscure forested area and got blood transfusions. This was during the Tour.

Landis did okay, I've never disliked him as a person and he said if Lance had not won it doped, then the person that won it would have been.

Just a few links:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entert ... trong.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/floyd-l ... d=11226456

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/floyd-l ... 456&page=1

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/floyd-la ... hers-liars

It is a subject that I can see at times, Bernie's view, though he seems sometimes on a crusade and really many others have done the same for at least 6 years now. I've certainly been through the whole discussion enough times.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

Any more information about the Taliban trained, Machine Gun toting Monkeys? In the grand scheme of things, they may be more of a serious issue - if true.

These monkeys may kill someone. The Lance investigation - probably a fine at most. Seriously - get your priorities straight.

Of course there are plenty of 'more serious' issues worthy of discussion than the investigation into Armstrong, from climate change to the way the British police can assault and even kill people with impunity. However, this is a cycling forum, and this section focus' on pro racing. Given that the Armstrong investigation could both expose the biggest doping scandal in cycling since Festina (possibly ever) and in turn the biggest fraud in the history of sport, it is only right that the story should be discussed in serious depth. What's more, to want to do so can hardly be considered to be evidence of an 'unhealthy obsession' on a forum where something as insignificant as a muffed gear-change can generate pages and pages of debate!

P.s Yes, I do realise that you might be joking, but the 'this isn't even interesting' line seems to be increasingly used by Armstrong's defenders, along with the 'this is just a waster of public money' 'argument'. A sign of their increasing desperation perhaps...

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

P.s Yes, I do realise that you might be joking, but the 'this isn't even interesting' line seems to be increasingly used by Armstrong's defenders, along with the 'this is just a waster of public money' 'argument'. A sign of their increasing desperation perhaps...

I'm not saying it's not worthwhile - just that it's really boring at the moment. When someone's in front of a judge/jury/whatever, then I'll pay attention.