USADA files doping charges against Lance

1…6162646667…77

Comments

  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    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? :?
    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...
    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.


    Dennis - Did you actually read any of it?

    *You can post whatever you like - what you can't do is post about people discussing the subject and then wonder why people are discussing the subject more when you keep bringing it up - You are directly creating the problem you re trying to understand!

    *I know you did nt read the second bit - I made an observation about how LA portrays himslef to the media and thus makes his money. In my opinion, the way he currently makes his money is by being the typical "All American Hero" - he wil not be able to do this if found guilty.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • andrewjoseph
    andrewjoseph Posts: 2,165
    I don't think Dennis can be bothered to read many posts in their entirety.

    He asked me specific questions about a post of mine above, to which I gave specific replies and asked a few questions. This was ignored.

    I'm not to worried by this, I don't expect people to hang on my every word, but he asked questions and didn't bother to follow up. I expect he thinks everyone knows his questions are rhetorical. Or just playing 'Devils Advocate', or maybe even 'a social experiment'.
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ddraver wrote:
    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? :?
    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...
    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.

    *I know you did nt read the second bit - I made an observation about how LA portrays himslef to the media and thus makes his money. In my opinion, the way he currently makes his money is by being the typical "All American Hero" - he wil not be able to do this if found guilty.
    I'm thinking that throwing in the words "dirty cheat" adds a bit more to your using the word observation. Makes it more of a "I hate that guy" type of thing than an observation. That's how I read it. Doesn't really matter though as it will all be over soon. Or maybe it won't? I can see that no matter now it all goes that there will be
    some sort of related thread for quite a while. If it's decided in his favor I'm betting that the conspiracy theory threads will far exceed any thread thus far. I love those things.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Whenever I think of Dennis and his various confessions over the years, I always think of this

    1243594993_cupcakedog-war-flashbacks.gif
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    Whenever I think of Dennis and his various confessions over the years, I always think of this

    1243594993_cupcakedog-war-flashbacks.gif

    When you get to my age confessions of past whatevers, good or bad, are sort of good for the soul. Although many may believe I sold my soul to LA on a lonely crossroad down south, it just didn't happen.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Cor, Lance has 7 lawyers for todays court session.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    iainf72 wrote:
    Cor, Lance has 7 lawyers for todays court session.

    Is it live ... on tv? :D
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    iainf72 wrote:
    Cor, Lance has 7 lawyers for todays court session.

    so when exactly should we expect some news on this ?

    I just thought the judge would issue a statement didn't realise it was a full court thing
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    dennisn wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    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? :?
    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...
    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.

    *I know you did nt read the second bit - I made an observation about how LA portrays himslef to the media and thus makes his money. In my opinion, the way he currently makes his money is by being the typical "All American Hero" - he wil not be able to do this if found guilty.
    I'm thinking that throwing in the words "dirty cheat" adds a bit more to your using the word observation. Makes it more of a "I hate that guy" type of thing than an observation. That's how I read it. Doesn't really matter though as it will all be over soon. Or maybe it won't? I can see that no matter now it all goes that there will be
    some sort of related thread for quite a while. If it's decided in his favor I'm betting that the conspiracy theory threads will far exceed any thread thus far. I love those things.

    My opinion on it is irrelevant. If you can find any example of him making money by being cowed and humble I ll change my posts. You won't because he does nt and I suspect you are trolling because I know you re not a total idiot.

    You know just as well as I do the difference between Lance Armstrong the one man and ***LANCE ARMSTRONG*** the Brand. The Brand hinges on him having won 7 TdF's clean
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    Cor, Lance has 7 lawyers for todays court session.

    Now that's what I call coming in prepared. Jeez
    Can You imagine the BS that 7 lawyers in a single courtroom could cause? Not to mention the other sides people.
    Ahhhhh, to be the proverbial fly on the wall.
    Just out of curiousity, how much of all this will be made public, if any? Or will it be sort like the Grand Jury? i.e. here's our decision - see ya later - details unsealed in 50 years.
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    Timoid. wrote:
    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.
    I've often wondered the same thing. I think the answer is that he gives a story that many find congruent (his brother dying) & that he wasn't dominant at any point.
    10th, 9th & 8th In 2002-2004 is hardly indicative of clean, esp given the apparently accepted belief that winning in those years required dope.
    Still, I have an open mind about it. I just find it hard to accept definitely clean when the same evidence being used here against Armstrong applies to some degree (that of doing well requiring not being clean).
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    You know what today's court date is about, right Den?

    We will definitely know, probably next week
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    Well SKY had ideas of signing him, partly because he was considered clean.
    http://cyclinganddesign.blogspot.fr/
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    You know what today's court date is about, right Den?

    We will definitely know, probably next week

    Ya, now I know. I'm a little behind on things. Don't follow it very close at all except on this forum and the occasional headline. :oops:
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Sastre clean? You have got to be kidding.
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    No. What do you know?
    http://cyclinganddesign.blogspot.fr/
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,243
    David Millar ‏@millarmind
    Personally I totally disagree with the way the UCI is conducting itself. It is wrong.
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    DeadCalm wrote:
    David Millar ‏@millarmind
    Personally I totally disagree with the way the UCI is conducting itself. It is wrong.
    And the two before that .
    I'm very confused by the Union Cycliste Internationale. The UCI President says WADA has had a political campaign against them for 10-15yrs.
    Pretty sure WADA is just over 12yrs old.
  • rdt
    rdt Posts: 869
    McQuaid: I'm not trying to save Lance Armstrong's skin

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... rongs-skin

    "Allegations of corruption, a stand-off with anti-doping organisations and a lack of understanding over the severity of the Armstrong case – just when will the sport's leaders wake up?

    Out-played and outclassed, first by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and then the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in a spate of publicly leaked letters, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has found itself outnumbered, out-gunned and now out-thought. Their arguments surrounding jurisdiction have fallen down at the first hurdle, their case diluted by first their vilification of Floyd Landis's whistle-blowing and then by Hein Verbruggen's unwavering support of Armstrong with his ‘never, never doped' lingo. If U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks finds against them and grants USADA the rope they need then cycling's governing body will find itself on the outside looking in as the biggest anti-doping case in the sport's history is decided upon. Not only that but its reputation - according to WADA's David Howman - will be further diminished.

    But the question that remains unanswered is why the UCI is behaving in such a manner? Why go to these desperate lengths when in the cases of Landis's allegations, Valverde's dodgy blood and the lesser known case of Phil Zajicek's credit card statements, they stood back and allowed the national anti-doping federations to exercise complete control? What's the difference now? If Hein Verbruggen is so sure that Lance Armstrong is the poster boy of clean cycling, then why the need for control?"
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    inseine wrote:
    Well SKY had ideas of signing him, partly because he was considered clean.
    OK, I'm interested now....
    I never heard that Sky were interested, so I guess it brings up some questions for me:
    -was it reported that Sky were interested? Objective media or PR job if so?
    -If they were, was it because he was clean (having seen lots of passport data (&, lets be honest, his best years were pre-passport)?
    -were Sky looking at "no doping" or "no publicly available doping connection"? These 2 will have a large crossover, but won't be the same.
    -If he was clean when Sky were looking, what does this tell us about 2002-2004 or other years prior to 2009?
    -Given that they didn't sign him, was it because he was not interested, or because ho wasn't clean?

    You appear to be using argument from authority without validating the authority. Correct me if I'm wrong but....
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    edited August 2012
    rdt wrote:
    McQuaid: I'm not trying to save Lance Armstrong's skin

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... rongs-skin

    "Allegations of corruption, a stand-off with anti-doping organisations and a lack of understanding over the severity of the Armstrong case – just when will the sport's leaders wake up?

    Out-played and outclassed, first by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and then the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in a spate of publicly leaked letters, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has found itself outnumbered, out-gunned and now out-thought. Their arguments surrounding jurisdiction have fallen down at the first hurdle, their case diluted by first their vilification of Floyd Landis's whistle-blowing and then by Hein Verbruggen's unwavering support of Armstrong with his ‘never, never doped' lingo. If U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks finds against them and grants USADA the rope they need then cycling's governing body will find itself on the outside looking in as the biggest anti-doping case in the sport's history is decided upon. Not only that but its reputation - according to WADA's David Howman - will be further diminished.

    But the question that remains unanswered is why the UCI is behaving in such a manner? Why go to these desperate lengths when in the cases of Landis's allegations, Valverde's dodgy blood and the lesser known case of Phil Zajicek's credit card statements, they stood back and allowed the national anti-doping federations to exercise complete control? What's the difference now? If Hein Verbruggen is so sure that Lance Armstrong is the poster boy of clean cycling, then why the need for control?"


    Now this is starting to answer why LA et al won big big races and never got tested positive. LA brought in and being the new poster boy of cycling in 1999 and a good story to bury the disasterous 1998 Tour de France. Anyone who left LA for another Team got busted. This stunk of inner dealings by the dope testers at that time and seems to have Verbruggens fingerprints all over it. At last, my longstanding questions are being answered.
    I said, as soon as AC left Astana/Bruyneel that AC would get busted and low and behold he did. It stinks to be honest.
    I have a hunch Bruyneels fingerprints are all over Shreck snr's positive test also.

    (to anyone who has a Lawyer/Barrister; my post above is the ramblings of someone who has no idea of the facts of anything and is stating a point of view) Phew! ;)
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    Still, I have an open mind about it. I just find it hard to accept definitely clean when the same evidence being used here against Armstrong applies to some degree (that of doing well requiring not being clean).

    No. The case will have no evidence which is 'that of doing well requiring not being clean'.

    Opinion might be based on that comment, it might be mentioned in quotes from witnesses even, but the case cannot be based around that in the slightest. That's not evidence.
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    mfin wrote:
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    Still, I have an open mind about it. I just find it hard to accept definitely clean when the same evidence being used here against Armstrong applies to some degree (that of doing well requiring not being clean).

    No. The case will have no evidence which is 'that of doing well requiring not being clean'.

    Opinion might be based on that comment, it might be mentioned in quotes from witnesses even, but the case cannot be based around that in the slightest. That's not evidence.

    Think we're in to "known, knowns and unknown knowns...". Rumsfeld country.
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • tarzan13
    tarzan13 Posts: 78
    Already a delay and it's only just started. A small set back for USADA?

    http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomber ... 779540.php
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    mfin wrote:

    No. The case will have no evidence which is 'that of doing well requiring not being clean'.

    Opinion might be based on that comment, it might be mentioned in quotes from witnesses even, but the case cannot be based around that in the slightest. That's not evidence.
    You pretty much make the point I was trying to make. I was getting a little grumpy about Sastre being definitely clean whilst others were definitely dirty & using the same set of evidence to condemn one & exonerate another....
    I really like Sastre, but we need to get over like=clean & dislike=dirty. Which applies to me as much as anyone else...
    Even so, a clean top 10 finish in 2002? Really??
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    jerry3571 wrote:
    Think we're in to "known, knowns and unknown knowns...". Rumsfeld country.
    Yep, I agree, except there are known knowns...
    The point I tried to make, perhaps ineloquently, is that there's one dataset which seems to enables polar opposite conclusions... That's simply BS...
    If Sastre was definitely clean, Armstrong can't be definitely dirty is all....
    Yes, there are some knowns & unknowns in there, but they are surely parallel, no?
    I want=Sastre clean as the driven snow & Armstrong convicted
    The facts might not equal this. I might want to take notice of this before posting something
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    mfin wrote:

    No. The case will have no evidence which is 'that of doing well requiring not being clean'.

    Opinion might be based on that comment, it might be mentioned in quotes from witnesses even, but the case cannot be based around that in the slightest. That's not evidence.
    You pretty much make the point I was trying to make. I was getting a little grumpy about Sastre being definitely clean whilst others were definitely dirty & using the same set of evidence to condemn one & exonerate another....
    I really like Sastre, but we need to get over like=clean & dislike=dirty. Which applies to me as much as anyone else...
    Even so, a clean top 10 finish in 2002? Really??
    You would need to analyse his performances to see if he achieved any unbelievable numbers. His GC position doesn't answer that question one way or the other.

    This whole concept of cleanliness is arbitrary in itself. If F. Schleck honestly hasn't been deliberately doping (he should make sure he performs better if he is going to take the risk for starters...), his positive test has no bearing on his cleanliness as a rider. The opposite is equally applicable.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    dougzz wrote:
    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 from
    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.


    If you can't reassign the wins to a lower placed rider then it's fair to ask who got cheated. No GC rider was clean unless stupid sadly. Doping in that era was a victimless crime. But to repeat, agree livestong is a disgusting self serving creation so I agree with a lot of the anger on here and so I understand why many people wish to see LA gone.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    Richrd2205, well it's in the sky's the limit book. Apparently Scott Sunderland was convinced he was clean (they delved into everyone's past including passports) but they weren't prepared/couldn't get him out of his contract.
    http://cyclinganddesign.blogspot.fr/
  • emadden
    emadden Posts: 2,431
    Apologies, this isnt 100% on topic ... but I found this comment on a blog and thought it was interesting!

    The publicist for Livestrong, Katherine McLane, came to the foundation in 2007 from the Bush Department of Education.

    Mark McKinnon, a GOP consultant who was instrumental in getting George W. Bush elected is on the board of Livestrong.

    Lance Armstrong’s lawyers are all Bush family pit-bulls. Robert Luskin defended Karl Rove during the Valery Plame case. Tim Herman volunteered to work on George W. Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000, and has worked for Bush in many capacities for at least two decades. Judge Sam Sparks was appointed by Bush Sr.
    **************************************************
    www.dotcycling.com
    ***************************************************

Categories