USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Has anyone worked out the cash Armstrong stands to lose if he confesses?
If there's one thing this ends with it's definitely not the bolded part.0 -
ThomThom wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Has anyone worked out the cash Armstrong stands to lose if he confesses?
If there's one thing this ends with it's definitely not the bolded part.
Not saying it is.
I'm just interested in the financial calculation he's making.
I reckon the cash plays a significant role in his decision making.0 -
Is there any significant financial advantage to fighting and losing the case, as opposed to confessing straight up? Seems to me, from a point of future earnings potential, confessing offers a richer tapestry?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
It's hard to quantify future earnings loss I guess. Does he get any cut from Livestrong the charity or sports side?Rick Chasey wrote:ThomThom wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Has anyone worked out the cash Armstrong stands to lose if he confesses?
If there's one thing this ends with it's definitely not the bolded part.
Not saying it is.
I'm just interested in the financial calculation he's making.
I reckon the cash plays a significant role in his decision making.
He's seen what happened to Marion Jones, and surely his implosion will be much much bigger. Whilst this is all going on in court, I think the real battle will be if a guilty verdict hits mainstream media outlets. Has he got any hope of maintaining victim status with a media that prefers simpler stories (cheat/not cheat) than the one he will be relying on to save his skin.0 -
if he gets stripped of the tour titles he may have to give back the SCA money that went to several million. He gets money from livestrong.com plus all his endorsements and public speaking money0
-
His draw is being the all conquering, brash, dick swinging, American Hero (Republican Asshole to quote South Park) - he won't get anything for being the cowed, fallible fool who did wrong and is trying to make good (hippy liberal douche)...
I don't doubt that he has enough squirreled away to survive, but he would nt be ***LANCE ARMSTRONG*** any more, he'd just be some bloke who went to europe...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
josame wrote:
Why does who they go to even matter? Shouldn't have any bearing on LA's innocence or guilt.....0 -
Regardless of our own personal opinions as to whether Armstrong doped or not, what do you all think the end result will be?
Unfortunately, I have to say that my gut feeling is that this one will either drag on for years or that he will be found not guilty.0 -
BigGar35 wrote:Regardless of our own personal opinions as to whether Armstrong doped or not, what do you all think the end result will be?
Unfortunately, I have to say that my gut feeling is that this one will either drag on for years or that he will be found not guilty.
BALCO style without the fear of dropping the soap in the shower.0 -
New Pat letter to Howman
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat ... -to-Howman
And one to Bock
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat ... er-to-Bock
Feel free to ignore them Rick, they're via theraceradioFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:New Pat letter to Howman
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat ... -to-Howman
And one to Bock
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat ... er-to-Bock
Feel free to ignore them Rick, they're via theraceradio
S'alright - I use you to filter out the guff
. 0 -
iainf72 wrote:New Pat letter to Howman
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat ... -to-Howman
And one to Bock
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat ... er-to-Bock
Feel free to ignore them Rick, they're via theraceradio
Wow they really do want that witness list dont they..!dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
josame wrote:
Thanks for your opinion. Was just curious of Iain's opinion as he's been arguing for the banning of big tex but we need to see who he cheated to win 7 TDFs. Nobody anywhere near the GC group. Victimless crime in terms of who lost their right to a TDF win. The livestrong stuff is pretty corrupt and disgusting though so I see where anger comes from0 -
How can you be sure? Granted you needed to be on the juice to feature high up in the TDF so most of the high finishers will also have been doped but how do you know that there wasn't someone riding clean coming in 27th who would have won if the top 26 hadn't been on a program?Dave_1 wrote:Victimless crime in terms of who lost their right to a TDF win.0 -
DeadCalm wrote:
How can you be sure? Granted you needed to be on the juice to feature high up in the TDF so most of the high finishers will also have been doped but how do you know that there wasn't someone riding clean coming in 27th who would have won if the top 26 hadn't been on a program?Dave_1 wrote:Victimless crime in terms of who lost their right to a TDF win.
Exactly0 -
No way victimless. How about all the people that never had a career because they wouldn't get on the program. All the people that didn't want to but felt pressed into it by others. I'd say remove the titles and simply leave it at that, the results were meaningless in a historical sense. If you following cycling you have a view, if you don't why would you care who won the 1999 TdF. The ASO could basically state that every winner of the TdF from 1991 to 2010 was in some doubt as to their freedom from doping, and that all the results had to be viewed in that context.Dave_1 wrote:Thanks for your opinion. Was just curious of Iain's opinion as he's been arguing for the banning of big tex but we need to see who he cheated to win 7 TDFs. Nobody anywhere near the GC group. Victimless crime in terms of who lost their right to a TDF win. The livestrong stuff is pretty corrupt and disgusting though so I see where anger comes from0 -
dougzz wrote:The ASO could basically state that every winner of the TdF from 1991 to 2010 was in some doubt as to their freedom from doping
Even Sastre?
Andy0 -
ratherbeintobago wrote:dougzz wrote:The ASO could basically state that every winner of the TdF from 1991 to 2010 was in some doubt as to their freedom from doping
Even Sastre?
Andy
Why does everyone think Sastre is clean? Genuine question, I have no opinion either way, but not sure where this wide held belief comes from.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Victimless? Are you kidding?
All those riders who were hounded-out of USPS/Disco for not getting on "the programme" or not being super-responders to EPO like Lance. There are no doubt countless, talented but disillusioned junior riders who never got a sniff of a pro contract because they didn't want to pump themselves full of hormones.
Finally, there's the legions of cycling fans who had to witness this charade and put-up with the bile and hatred, being called a "cancer lover" and far worse.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0 -
ddraver wrote:His draw is being the all conquering, brash, dick swinging, American Hero (Republican Asshole to quote South Park) - he won't get anything for being the cowed, fallible fool who did wrong and is trying to make good (hippy liberal douche)...
I don't doubt that he has enough squirreled away to survive, but he would nt be ***LANCE ARMSTRONG*** any more, he'd just be some bloke who went to europe...
Once again I think you make the mistake of making more of him than he is. I'll grant you that he might think that's who he is but I'm baffled by why you would think that.
Or is it because you have to have a good reason to hate / love him so you make him into something he MAY or MAY NOT be? It's a bit odd to me that, love him or hate him, both groups seem to have elevated him to a pedestal, and deity / demon status that is undeserved. He's neither.0 -
Two things:
(1) This case and all the shenanigans going on, are fantastic... Collectively, far more entertaining than a lot of the racing Ive seen this year
; and
(2) Whatever lawyer the UCI has should be shot for permitting Pat write these letters. Apart from his general ineptitude wrt grammar and punctuation, together with his boorish manner of writing as he speaks, the content he is putting on the record (and his manner of making points/asking questions) isn't of the caliber expected of a president in a case as serious as this one. Moreover, with every word he is writing, he looks more and more like a Lance defender when he needs to be entirely objective...... Rant over.**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
dennisn wrote:ddraver wrote:His draw is being the all conquering, brash, dick swinging, American Hero (Republican Asshole to quote South Park) - he won't get anything for being the cowed, fallible fool who did wrong and is trying to make good (hippy liberal douche)...
I don't doubt that he has enough squirreled away to survive, but he would nt be ***LANCE ARMSTRONG*** any more, he'd just be some bloke who went to europe...
Once again I think you make the mistake of making more of him than he is. I'll grant you that he might think that's who he is but I'm baffled by why you would think that.
Or is it because you have to have a good reason to hate / love him so you make him into something he MAY or MAY NOT be? It's a bit odd to me that, love him or hate him, both groups seem to have elevated him to a pedestal, and deity / demon status that is undeserved. He's neither.
Dennis - 2 things, You whinge about how people keep talking about the subject, but actually most of the new post are someone posting up a link to the next bit of news, we all read it, and wait until the next one. However, in the mean time you come on here and pontificate about why we re all posting and people answer. If you stripped all your posts out of this thread, it would barely have moved on in a month.
In answer to your question, I am talking about how ***LANCE ARMSTONG*** "the business" makes his money. He does it by selling himself as a mystical living legend and being more than he is. There are many like him, soem sports stars, some political stars, some business stars etc etc....
I could offer motivational speeches and charge thousands of dollars an hour for appearance fees for my charity, but no one gives a monkeys who I am so no one pays. If Armstrong is found guilty then he will no longer by a mystical living legend but a revealed dirty cheat. And few people want to pay to see/read/hear about them...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I think I'd buy a Lance Armstrong confessional book though...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
Dennis, wander down the pub and ask a bunch of people if they know who Lance Armstrong is. A massive amount of people will know, and a lot of them will know he had cancer. Cycling. Cancer. They will know of him cos he's an extremely famous sportsperson.
If charged, all these people will know him for one more reason - Cheating.
If charged, go to the pub months later and ask if people know who Lance Armstrong is and see how many of the responses include 'cheat' or other negative comments.
Above all. Go to the pub.0 -
0
-
ddraver wrote:Dennis - 2 things, You whinge about how people keep talking about the subject, but actually most of the new post are someone posting up a link to the next bit of news, we all read it, and wait until the next one. However, in the mean time you come on here and pontificate about why we re all posting and people answer. If you stripped all your posts out of this thread, it would barely have moved on in a month.
What?? I'm not allowed to post on this subject because I don't post like everyone else???
Also, am I not talking "... about the subject,..."? I enjoy all of this banter. Where's the problem? :?
Ahhhhh, now I see. I think. You dislike him because you disagree with how he makes his money. Me? I take a more liberal stance on that. Sort of "a fool and his money are soon parted" and " there's a sucker born every minute" outlook on the matter. These type of people may believe he's "....a mystical living ledgend..." but I don't think that's the general concensus of most people. There will be a few who will have their idol knocked off the pedestal they put him on, and that's there own fault, but I think the majority of the world will read about it and say "Hey, Lance got busted" or "Hey, lance got cleared" and never think much about it again.ddraver wrote:In answer to your question, I am talking about how ***LANCE ARMSTONG*** "the business" makes his money. He does it by selling himself as a mystical living legend and being more than he is. There are many like him, soem sports stars, some political stars, some business stars etc etc....
I could offer motivational speeches and charge thousands of dollars an hour for appearance fees for my charity, but no one gives a monkeys who I am so no one pays. If Armstrong is found guilty then he will no longer by a mystical living legend but a revealed dirty cheat. And few people want to pay to see/read/hear about them...0 -
mfin wrote:Dennis, wander down the pub and ask a bunch of people if they know who Lance Armstrong is. A massive amount of people will know, and a lot of them will know he had cancer. Cycling. Cancer. They will know of him cos he's an extremely famous sportsperson.
If charged, all these people will know him for one more reason - Cheating.
If charged, go to the pub months later and ask if people know who Lance Armstrong is and see how many of the responses include 'cheat' or other negative comments.
Above all. Go to the pub.
That's what I mean. You and I are still going to the pub, hopefully have a good time, and go home. Nothing will change except a few peoples attitude. And we're still going to the pub. And if we still go to the pub and keep talking about LA, no matter how all this turns out, a couple of the people there are going to ask us something to the effect of "Damn, is that all you ever talk about? Get a life." 0 -
dennisn wrote:ddraver wrote:Dennis - 2 things, You whinge about how people keep talking about the subject, but actually most of the new post are someone posting up a link to the next bit of news, we all read it, and wait until the next one. However, in the mean time you come on here and pontificate about why we re all posting and people answer. If you stripped all your posts out of this thread, it would barely have moved on in a month.
What?? I'm not allowed to post on this subject because I don't post like everyone else???
Also, am I not talking "... about the subject,..."? I enjoy all of this banter. Where's the problem? :?
Ahhhhh, now I see. I think. You dislike him because you disagree with how he makes his money. Me? I take a more liberal stance on that. Sort of "a fool and his money are soon parted" and " there's a sucker born every minute" outlook on the matter. These type of people may believe he's "....a mystical living ledgend..." but I don't think that's the general concensus of most people. There will be a few who will have their idol knocked off the pedestal they put him on, and that's there own fault, but I think the majority of the world will read about it and say "Hey, Lance got busted" or "Hey, lance got cleared" and never think much about it again.ddraver wrote:In answer to your question, I am talking about how ***LANCE ARMSTONG*** "the business" makes his money. He does it by selling himself as a mystical living legend and being more than he is. There are many like him, soem sports stars, some political stars, some business stars etc etc....
I could offer motivational speeches and charge thousands of dollars an hour for appearance fees for my charity, but no one gives a monkeys who I am so no one pays. If Armstrong is found guilty then he will no longer by a mystical living legend but a revealed dirty cheat. And few people want to pay to see/read/hear about them...
I dont think anyone's bothered about how he makes his money (apart from the Livestrong dodgy stuff), what they are bothered about is the fact the only reason why he can make this money in this first place and create the 'hows' to do it, is because of one reason: he's cheated at sport.0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:Dennis, wander down the pub and ask a bunch of people if they know who Lance Armstrong is. A massive amount of people will know, and a lot of them will know he had cancer. Cycling. Cancer. They will know of him cos he's an extremely famous sportsperson.
If charged, all these people will know him for one more reason - Cheating.
If charged, go to the pub months later and ask if people know who Lance Armstrong is and see how many of the responses include 'cheat' or other negative comments.
Above all. Go to the pub.
That's what I mean. You and I are still going to the pub, hopefully have a good time, and go home. Nothing will change except a few peoples attitude. And we're still going to the pub. And if we still go to the pub and keep talking about LA, no matter how all this turns out, a couple of the people there are going to ask us something to the effect of "Damn, is that all you ever talk about? Get a life."
Naaa, they won't say that. The reason I go to the pub is to get have a bloody good laugh with my mates, meet new people, and get shitfaced so cycling doesn't really get mentioned all that often
Okay, by saying 'pub' I gave you a tangent to spin off on, swap that to 'go to the supermarket...'.
Anyway, seriously, get to the pub.0
