decision in Armstrong Case and Dennis's Skiiing trip to Vail

ratsbeyfus

bicyclepirate wrote:

I just logged on saw this and literally only have two min, I promise to check back on Monday and re read everyone's comments but for now I want to say yay Lance! Bb suck it!

Wow - I look forward to reading a well considered opinion from you.

jamlala

BikingBernie wrote:

Oh, well,

Any hope that Armstrong would be brought to account was probably a bit like hoping for world peace or a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth. Unfortunately the reality is that the rich and powerful generally get their way and corruption rules.

So, Armstrong has 'got away' with the criminal conspiracy charges, but there is still overwhelming evidence that he doped his way to his seven meaningless Tour 'wins'.

The UCI is still incompetent, self-serving and most likely corrupt.

Most of all, thanks in no small part to those who knew what went on in in USP and Discovery but who failed to speak out when the time was right, such as Vaughters and Hincapie, the omerta still rules.

Unfortunately, this decision will ensure that cycling will continue much as it has for the last couple of decades, and the only way to enjoy the 'sport' will be to continue to suspend ones' critical faculties and willingly engage in the fantasy that what one is seeing has any sort of authenticity.

In your opinion.

dennisn

!!!

dcj

I would have to say that it's a whole lot more than a 10-12 year period where it "was normal for a top 10 finisher to dope". I even disagree with with your "top 10 finisher" estimation. Shall we say 1/3 of the peloton or more???

Dennisn i don't actually disagree though. i just picked the 'top 10' analogy to illustrate how pointless it would be to nominate any one of the other near or podium finishers in the tour for the years 1999-2005 if lance's name was removed.

dennisn

dcj wrote:

I would have to say that it's a whole lot more than a 10-12 year period where it "was normal for a top 10 finisher to dope". I even disagree with with your "top 10 finisher" estimation. Shall we say 1/3 of the peloton or more???

Dennisn i don't actually disagree though. i just picked the 'top 10' analogy to illustrate how pointless it would be to nominate any one of the other near or podium finishers in the tour for the years 1999-2005 if lance's name was removed.

I think, that in the end, a very good percentage of the people who make money cycling AND dope, get caught. Seems like there are always a few names being put out there as having been caught. To be honest there are not millions of people making a living racing bikes or subject to doping controls. Add to that the fact that testing is not perfect and cheaters are always coming up with new ways and means to get around the rules, I still feel that a goodly portion of them are being nailed. Maybe not all the ones that forum members want to be caught(for whatever reason) and maybe they aren't given enough punishment, according to some, but as the world is NOT a perfect place I think a pretty damn good job is being done anyway.

iainf72

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... on-platter

Few little tidbits in here of interest.

mfin

dennisn wrote:

dcj wrote:

I would have to say that it's a whole lot more than a 10-12 year period where it "was normal for a top 10 finisher to dope". I even disagree with with your "top 10 finisher" estimation. Shall we say 1/3 of the peloton or more???

Dennisn i don't actually disagree though. i just picked the 'top 10' analogy to illustrate how pointless it would be to nominate any one of the other near or podium finishers in the tour for the years 1999-2005 if lance's name was removed.

I think, that in the end, a very good percentage of the people who make money cycling AND dope, get caught. Seems like there are always a few names being put out there as having been caught. To be honest there are not millions of people making a living racing bikes or subject to doping controls. Add to that the fact that testing is not perfect and cheaters are always coming up with new ways and means to get around the rules, I still feel that a goodly portion of them are being nailed. Maybe not all the ones that forum members want to be caught(for whatever reason) and maybe they aren't given enough punishment, according to some, but as the world is NOT a perfect place I think a pretty damn good job is being done anyway.

Post is very open of you. My own feeling does go completely against the bold bit I highlighted. I believe back in the late 90's /early 00's that this was not the case at all, far from it in fact, I think next to noone was getting caught. I now believe that still, because even though tests are better etc, the doping has adapted. I dont think the doping advantage is so vast as it once was, but still believe naff all get caught dues to newer drugs, lesser dosing, better masking.

Back in the late 90's /early 00's I still consider to be recent history and all cheats should be held to account, and I suppose if someone was to say 'well, how far do you go back then' then Id have to say go as far back as you want, I dont care the scale of the 'heroes' that would have to be disgraced myself, as cheating in sport makes it not sport.

Tusher

andre.birotte@usdoj.gov.

Just in case you have a spare 60 seconds but can't be bothered reading the article. Let him now how you feel about the decision (good, bad or couldn't care less).

Tusher

My Dear Mr Armstrong,

I remain technologically challenged, and am therefore unable to address you through your favourite medium of 'twitter', therefore please accept this letter. I do hope you like lilac writing paper- it's Basildon Bond's best, and I've sprayed it with lavender water for you.

I have followed your career with interest and admiration- cycling has made you an incredibly wealthy man. I too cycle daily, yet I remain virtually penniless.

I appreciate that you are a busy man and therefore I shall cut out any further drivel and reach my point succinctly.

1. You are very rich.

2. You are prepared to donate large sums to charity.

3. You have given large sums to the favoured charities of those who are in a position to influence decisions which may affect both your career and your legacy.

4. Please send £2,000 pounds sterling to my favourite charity: "Tusher's Tour Holiday Fund". Unlike the UCI, I shall issue you with a receipt immediately.

5. I shall then feel morally obliged to post on messageboard's that you are the finest man in cycling and you could no more cheat than a rabbit could catch a salmon.

6. If you send £3,000, I shall even post in The Clinic.


Yours with affection and in expectation,

Tusher (Mrs)






Should I pen this in green crayon or mauve ink?

shinyhelmut

Blood. Your own. From that bag you keep in the back of your fridge.

dennisn

mfin wrote:

dennisn wrote:

dcj wrote:

I would have to say that it's a whole lot more than a 10-12 year period where it "was normal for a top 10 finisher to dope". I even disagree with with your "top 10 finisher" estimation. Shall we say 1/3 of the peloton or more???

Dennisn i don't actually disagree though. i just picked the 'top 10' analogy to illustrate how pointless it would be to nominate any one of the other near or podium finishers in the tour for the years 1999-2005 if lance's name was removed.

I think, that in the end, a very good percentage of the people who make money cycling AND dope, get caught. Seems like there are always a few names being put out there as having been caught. To be honest there are not millions of people making a living racing bikes or subject to doping controls. Add to that the fact that testing is not perfect and cheaters are always coming up with new ways and means to get around the rules, I still feel that a goodly portion of them are being nailed. Maybe not all the ones that forum members want to be caught(for whatever reason) and maybe they aren't given enough punishment, according to some, but as the world is NOT a perfect place I think a pretty damn good job is being done anyway.

Post is very open of you. My own feeling does go completely against the bold bit I highlighted. I believe back in the late 90's /early 00's that this was not the case at all, far from it in fact, I think next to noone was getting caught. I now believe that still, because even though tests are better etc, the doping has adapted. I dont think the doping advantage is so vast as it once was, but still believe naff all get caught dues to newer drugs, lesser dosing, better masking.

Back in the late 90's /early 00's I still consider to be recent history and all cheats should be held to account, and I suppose if someone was to say 'well, how far do you go back then' then Id have to say go as far back as you want, I dont care the scale of the 'heroes' that would have to be disgraced myself, as cheating in sport makes it not sport.

I'll agree to sort of disagree with you. If that makes any sense?
Your last comment about cheating in sport made me think the cheating is sort of a sport in itself. You have the cheaters and then you have the ones trying to catch them. Sounds like a sporting competition. Shame though about all that money spent doing it and all that money spent trying to prevent it. I almost have to chuckle at the idiocy that has been created by two things that seem to lack useful purpose yet are inexplicably intertwined. You have this bad thing(cheating) and then this other thing(testing) feeding off of it. The word pointless comes to mind.

frenchfighter

So basically all we can say is that he didn't buy his drugs with money given by US Postal to fund the team. Those bikes didn't get sold or the authorities couldn't prove it.

Expensive investigation to find that out especially when it would be rather stupid to do in the first place.

Cycling rolls on, the problem for me is only that those that don't know much about the sport will take this as Lance being cleared of doping which is obviously wrong.

sherer

thanks to the post from Ian and a few other websites it seems we have the worst possible ending for this case.

The case never finished and the reporting by Bettie Ford and the article Ian linked too both suggest the GJ case was ongoing and also that indictments were due soon. Now the investigation has been closed, rather than coming to a conclusion.

Livestrong seem to have made yet another shady donation that somehow seems to help out someone who can get the investigation closed down, surely this should be added to the list of things to GJ should be looking into.

dennisn

sherer wrote:

thanks to the post from Ian and a few other websites it seems we have the worst possible ending for this case.

The case never finished and the reporting by Bettie Ford and the article Ian linked too both suggest the GJ case was ongoing and also that indictments were due soon. Now the investigation has been closed, rather than coming to a conclusion.

Livestrong seem to have made yet another shady donation that somehow seems to help out someone who can get the investigation closed down, surely this should be added to the list of things to GJ should be looking into.

So now you're saying that he's guilty of Grand Jury tampering? Bold statement.
I think the operative words in your post were "...both SUGGEST the GJ......"
and "...SOMEHOW SEEMS to.....".
Would you like to be convicted on what seems to be or what someone suggests may be happening?

sherer

dennisn wrote:

sherer wrote:

thanks to the post from Ian and a few other websites it seems we have the worst possible ending for this case.

The case never finished and the reporting by Bettie Ford and the article Ian linked too both suggest the GJ case was ongoing and also that indictments were due soon. Now the investigation has been closed, rather than coming to a conclusion.

Livestrong seem to have made yet another shady donation that somehow seems to help out someone who can get the investigation closed down, surely this should be added to the list of things to GJ should be looking into.

So now you're saying that he's guilty of Grand Jury tampering? Bold statement.
I think the operative words in your post were "...both SUGGEST the GJ......"
and "...SOMEHOW SEEMS to.....".
Would you like to be convicted on what seems to be or what someone suggests may be happening?

I'm not saying LA tampered the GJ but using the US legal system somehow that process has been sidestepped and been closed down from above. Note the GJ was closed rather than coming to it's natural conclusion.
Again note that someone connected to the department that closed the GJ received a payment from Livestrong.

What should have happened is either the GJ produced charges or it should have played out till the end and none followed. The people working on the case only found out 30 minutes before the annoucenment that it was going to be closed and there were witnesses due in next week to be questioned. Does that sound like an investigation that has finished to you ?

LangerDan

sherer wrote:

The case never finished and the reporting by Bettie Ford and the article Ian linked too both suggest the GJ case was ongoing and also that indictments were due soon. Now the investigation has been closed, rather than coming to a conclusion.

Bonnie Ford, perhaps? Betty Ford deals with a whole different class of substance abuse

mfin

frenchfighter wrote:

So basically all we can say is that he didn't buy his drugs with money given by US Postal to fund the team. Those bikes didn't get sold or the authorities couldn't prove it.

Expensive investigation to find that out especially when it would be rather stupid to do in the first place.

Cycling rolls on, the problem for me is only that those that don't know much about the sport will take this as Lance being cleared of doping which is obviously wrong.

+10

ddraver

Ah Dennis is using capital letters again, All is right with the Pro Race world....

dennisn

sherer wrote:

dennisn wrote:

sherer wrote:

thanks to the post from Ian and a few other websites it seems we have the worst possible ending for this case.

The case never finished and the reporting by Bettie Ford and the article Ian linked too both suggest the GJ case was ongoing and also that indictments were due soon. Now the investigation has been closed, rather than coming to a conclusion.

Livestrong seem to have made yet another shady donation that somehow seems to help out someone who can get the investigation closed down, surely this should be added to the list of things to GJ should be looking into.

So now you're saying that he's guilty of Grand Jury tampering? Bold statement.
I think the operative words in your post were "...both SUGGEST the GJ......"
and "...SOMEHOW SEEMS to.....".
Would you like to be convicted on what seems to be or what someone suggests may be happening?

I'm not saying LA tampered the GJ but using the US legal system somehow that process has been sidestepped and been closed down from above. Note the GJ was closed rather than coming to it's natural conclusion.
Again note that someone connected to the department that closed the GJ received a payment from Livestrong.

What should have happened is either the GJ produced charges or it should have played out till the end and none followed. The people working on the case only found out 30 minutes before the annoucenment that it was going to be closed and there were witnesses due in next week to be questioned. Does that sound like an investigation that has finished to you ?

I will admit to not completely understanding GJ's. I do know that what happens in their sessions is not open to you or I. I know that they are asked only to decide if they feel there is enough evidence to procede to trial. I have no clue about how they get closed down and for what reason / reasons. I do know that there have been more than a few people, from politicians to business CEO's to crime figures to "big wigs" of all sorts, that have tried to influence GJ's and most of them live to regret it. Much bigger fish than LA have tried and have, shall we say, not met with success. What the have met with is jail time.
As for LA buying his way out of everything, well, I don't buy that either. Bernie Madoff
had more money that pretty much any other man on earth and he's now spending none of it. He got caught and all that money didn't keep him out of jail.

frenchfighter

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11077 ... ation.aspx

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

Bernie Madoff
had more money that pretty much any other man on earth and he's now spending none of it. He got caught and all that money didn't keep him out of jail.

I see you know about as much about Bernie Madoff as you know about pro cycling.

bicyclepirate

Well, I see theory after theory here and very little substance. If this large investigation hasn't turned up sufficient evidence for a charge the there are two possibilities. Either the investigation was incompetent, which doesn't seem likely given the provenance of the investigators,or there is no evidence. In the us and the uk no evidence means not guilty. So lance is not guilty and that's the top and bottom of it so far. Of course more evidence may come to light or there maybe sufficient evidence for a lesser charge but that seems unlikely at this point. Either way I'm sure lance sleeps easier tonight than a year ago and he deserves to. Let's see what comes out of the woodwork in the next 4-5 years

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Bernie Madoff
had more money that pretty much any other man on earth and he's now spending none of it. He got caught and all that money didn't keep him out of jail.

I see you know about as much about Bernie Madoff as you know about pro cycling.

I thought it was a fairly valid point seeing as how some on this topic seem to think LA yeilds and or wields enough power and money to buy his way out of anything. I'm seriously doubting that he has anywhere near the kind of punch, if you will, that Bernie M. could bring to bear. I think you elevate LA to God or Demon status, in which case he might be able to prevail over all mortals. Trust me on this. He's a man, like you and I. No more no less. Don't sell yourself short. You're better than that.

inkyfingers

I like the fact that halfway down this page is an advert for private jets (for me at least).

andrewjoseph

bicyclepirate wrote:

... the investigation was incompetent, which doesn't seem likely given the provenance of the investigators,or there is no evidence...

Many of the reports I have read state that evidence gathering was still ongoing, interviews for this week had been arranged. There was still a lot planned. And we don't know what evidence has already been gathered.

The people who were working on this have been told to stop 30 minutes before the press release went out. This does not mean there is no evidence, up until that time it was still being actively pursued.

Any evidence to date may be handed over to WADA/ the US sports anti-doping authorities. There is still an option that this may be overturned and the enquiry started again.

That there is no evidence may be true, but the process was stopped (for now) before it could conclude. This is far from saying there was nothing to find or nothing could be found.

rick_chasey

Is there really that much to say about this?

We don't even know why it was dropped yet (though at a guess I'd say it's obviously too expensive for the taxpayer given everything else).

cajun_cyclist

FF posted the article with the director of WADA, according to the article, USADA might still be obligated to examine this matter:

WADA’s president John Fahey stated yesterday that the fact that the United States is a signatory to both the WADA Code and the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport meant that WADA believed it would be “confident that they will carry out their responsibilities as outlined in these documents.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11077 ... z1las7faSJ

It may be that the Fraud charges did not seem strong. Without a doubt, the "criminal investigation" ended abruptly.

Tusher

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/liggett ... e-of-money

I can't do the other link thing, but I quote........

"He told me in a private situation.......I was sat in the bedroom some years ago, and I asked him point blank...."

and so on and so on.

I could be soo very rude and comment on the fact that he was having to sit down in order to suck Lance's .........but I won't.

I did burst out laughing though.

ddraver

Ligget wrote:

“But I’ve been with him on his private jet when he’s been reading stuff on Cyclingnews and he’s gone, ‘god damn it look at what they’re saying about me again’ and he just passes his computer over to his friends.”

Hey Boys (and girl), we re getting to him!!

Jez mon

Tusher wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/liggett-on-armstrong-the-whole-investigation-was-a-waste-of-money

I can't do the other link thing, but I quote........

"He told me in a private situation.......I was sat in the bedroom some years ago, and I asked him point blank...."

and so on and so on.

I could be soo very rude and comment on the fact that he was having to sit down in order to suck Lance's .........but I won't.

I did burst out laughing though.

Well, that's convinced me



Why even interview Liggett on this subject? He totally ignores cycling's problems (more so than I feel you have to as a commentator and has a lack of credibility), he's Lance's own version of French Fighter, except he gets to be on TV