Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

dennisn

ThomThom wrote:

dennisn wrote:

For all that's been said against LA, liar, thief, bully, druggie, etc. there seem to be many of you hoping that he will throw others "under the bus". If he's that bad of a person, and he may very well be, how is it that you can put your faith in him to tell the truth now, when in the past he never did? Where does this sudden trust and or belief in what he will say come from? Seems to me that it could be one criminal testifying against another and vice versa in attempts to save their *sses. For whatever reason this scenario doesn't exactly scream of truth and righteousness. Bunches of people ratting each other out and cutting deals for preferential treatment just doesn't strike me as anything I can really believe in.
Gonna make great soap opera though.

Why are you igoring every piece of information we've got for last many years?

Not ignoring anything. Just questioning why, all of a sudden, what LA is saying or going to say is being looked at as some sort of truth? In other words why believe him now? Before he was a cheat, scumbag, lying so and so. Now, the same people seem to be putting all this faith in him and are now listening to what he says as if it would somehow be some sort of word sent down from on high and whatever he says or whomever he throws under the bus is the "real story". Hard to figure why the change of heart among the so called LA haters, to change them into the LA believers?

thomthom

He can only lie or tell the truth. He has already lied.

Nick Fitt

dennisn wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

dennisn wrote:

For all that's been said against LA, liar, thief, bully, druggie, etc. there seem to be many of you hoping that he will throw others "under the bus". If he's that bad of a person, and he may very well be, how is it that you can put your faith in him to tell the truth now, when in the past he never did? Where does this sudden trust and or belief in what he will say come from? Seems to me that it could be one criminal testifying against another and vice versa in attempts to save their *sses. For whatever reason this scenario doesn't exactly scream of truth and righteousness. Bunches of people ratting each other out and cutting deals for preferential treatment just doesn't strike me as anything I can really believe in.
Gonna make great soap opera though.

Why are you igoring every piece of information we've got for last many years?

Not ignoring anything. Just questioning why, all of a sudden, what LA is saying or going to say is being looked at as some sort of truth? In other words why believe him now? Before he was a cheat, scumbag, lying so and so. Now, the same people seem to be putting all this faith in him and are now listening to what he says as if it would somehow be some sort of word sent down from on high and whatever he says or whomever he throws under the bus is the "real story". Hard to figure why the change of heart among the so called LA haters, to change them into the LA believers?

Keep up Dennis, his 'immediate confession' merely goes to support the insurmountable evidence piled up against him. Lying is no longer an option for him, he has tried that for a few months hasn't he, he can now only tell the truth.

iainf72

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOxQ6aEW ... r_embedded

Lulz

ddraver

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/overend ... -criminals

More of this please US cyclists

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/overend-calls-for-cyclings-dopers-to-be-treated-as-criminals

More of this please US cyclists

Danny Pate tweeted link to the original interview article quoted/pilfered by CN - think Mr Pate might be sympathetic with Overend's views

dennisn

Nick Fitt wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

dennisn wrote:

For all that's been said against LA, liar, thief, bully, druggie, etc. there seem to be many of you hoping that he will throw others "under the bus". If he's that bad of a person, and he may very well be, how is it that you can put your faith in him to tell the truth now, when in the past he never did? Where does this sudden trust and or belief in what he will say come from? Seems to me that it could be one criminal testifying against another and vice versa in attempts to save their *sses. For whatever reason this scenario doesn't exactly scream of truth and righteousness. Bunches of people ratting each other out and cutting deals for preferential treatment just doesn't strike me as anything I can really believe in.
Gonna make great soap opera though.

Why are you igoring every piece of information we've got for last many years?

Not ignoring anything. Just questioning why, all of a sudden, what LA is saying or going to say is being looked at as some sort of truth? In other words why believe him now? Before he was a cheat, scumbag, lying so and so. Now, the same people seem to be putting all this faith in him and are now listening to what he says as if it would somehow be some sort of word sent down from on high and whatever he says or whomever he throws under the bus is the "real story". Hard to figure why the change of heart among the so called LA haters, to change them into the LA believers?

Keep up Dennis, his 'immediate confession' merely goes to support the insurmountable evidence piled up against him. Lying is no longer an option for him, he has tried that for a few months hasn't he, he can now only tell the truth.

"...he can now only tell the truth". To be honest, THAT is a leap of faith that I'm not at all prepared to make. :roll: :roll:

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Do you want the whole truth or nothing about the truth or will i ask my lawyers 8)

Ah, that's made me think. Maybe he'll do the whole Colonel Jessup thing from A Few Good Men. Maybe one of the wordsmiths on here (OC, Rich etc.) could do a suitable re-write?

Here's one I prepared a few moths ago: viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12883992&p=17926376#p17926376

(Like Steve Jobs, I know what you want long before you do)

dmclite-3.0

So he doped, so what.

Almost every contender or significant rider of that era doped, strip all of them of all victories, nope, just the one. Some got caught and dealt with, but LA was victimized due to the level of his success, he got greedy and paid the price.

His first book got me on my bike and into cycling, but I dont hate Eddy Merckx, Coppi, Simpson and they all doped, I just accept it is part and parcel of cycling. Merckx's nickname was "The Cannibal", single minded, rode over everyone and is still revered, go figure.

moltryn

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

So he doped, so what.

Almost every contender or significant rider of that era doped, strip all of them of all victories, nope, just the one. Some got caught and dealt with, but LA was victimized due to the level of his success, he got greedy and paid the price.

His first book got me on my bike and into cycling, but I dont hate Eddy Merckx, Coppi, Simpson and they all doped, I just accept it is part and parcel of cycling. Merckx's nickname was "The Cannibal", single minded, rode over everyone and is still revered, go figure.

It's not quite that he 'doped', he duped as well.. extensively, throughout all of his 'career'. LA's 'victimisation' as you put it, is down to a little more than his success (now stripped from him) or his greed (which may also be stripped if he is made to pay a price for it). He lied, lied and lied repeatedly with outrage and vitriol when accused of violating the rules - even while he knew he was guilty, and denounced, ridiculed, attacked, ruined careers, and sued those that remotely implied that he was perhaps 'not above board'. Merckx, Coppi, Simpson et al certainly doped too, but they certainly didn't do what LA did whilst earning tens of millions of dollars at the expense of others. As Lance (blatantly?) put it himself, it's not about the bike!

Anonymous

dmc-lite - heres a v short article posted on the previous page, which sums it up quite nicely for me:

"I'm not sure what I think about drugging when everyone else around you is drugging. I don't think lying is a very good idea. I think trying to destroy people for telling the truth is a good deal worse. It's that all-out war that really sets Armstrong apart. This isn't just a "doping scandal." It's something much creepier."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ng/267184/

thomthom

Incredible that some people still have to be enlighted why exactly this guy is a tiny bit worse than everyone else. At least on a forum about pro cycling.

dmclite-3.0

ThomThom wrote:

Incredible that some people still have to be enlighted why exactly this guy is a tiny bit worse than everyone else. At least on a forum about pro cycling.

No not incredible, just a different viewpoint, that is all. People are allowed to have differing opinions y'know.

st68

gonna love watching lance squirm all the bull he dished out over the years has come back an bit him on the butt

thomthom

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

Incredible that some people still have to be enlighted why exactly this guy is a tiny bit worse than everyone else. At least on a forum about pro cycling.

No not incredible, just a different viewpoint, that is all. People are allowed to have differing opinions y'know.

So basically your viewpoint is that bullying and threatening isn't relevant?

Yes, it's incredible. Incredibly ignorant.

dennisn

A few pages back people were proposing questions to ask LA. I got to thinking that it would be more interesting to question Oprah. I mean we all know that he did dope, did dope on a bus, did some more dope elsewhere, pushed and bullied a few people around, can implicate his share of evil doers, etc. So what if he confesses to all that. Isn't it something that WE knew all along?
Anyway, I'm thinking about Oprah. If she told the truth(yea I know, who am I kidding?), what would be some good questions to ask her about this whole thing? i.e.
Oprah did you and or your people decide to do this to simply boost ratings on your network or because you really do care about people?
Was it part of the deal, to get LA to talk / confess that you would anoint him as "redeemed"?
Do you and LA know that, for the most part, any redemption he gets will only really be well received by your female audience do to the fact that most men don't give a sh*t about you or what you say?
Or were you only shooting for the approval of the female audience and then let them spread "The Good Word" to the men in their lives?

Much more interesting than listening, for a couple of hours, to someone confessing to using dope and being mean.

dennisn

ThomThom wrote:

Incredible that some people still have to be enlighted why exactly this guy is a tiny bit worse than everyone else. At least on a forum about pro cycling.

Are you the one going to do this "enlightening"? If I let myself be enlightened by you will it hurt? Personally I think you should leave the enlightening to the professional's like Oprah, Jerry Springer, Piers Morgan, The Talking Heads of ESPN, etc.

dennisn

moltryn wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

So he doped, so what.

Almost every contender or significant rider of that era doped, strip all of them of all victories, nope, just the one. Some got caught and dealt with, but LA was victimized due to the level of his success, he got greedy and paid the price.

His first book got me on my bike and into cycling, but I dont hate Eddy Merckx, Coppi, Simpson and they all doped, I just accept it is part and parcel of cycling. Merckx's nickname was "The Cannibal", single minded, rode over everyone and is still revered, go figure.

Merckx, Coppi, Simpson et al certainly doped too, but they certainly didn't do what LA did whilst earning tens of millions of dollars at the expense of others.

I'm pretty certain that if anyone had asked Eddy M. and the rest, if they doped they would have denied it as much as LA or anyone. And if they doped, which you claim they did, isn't that earning money at the expense of others? I'm hard pressed to see the difference. "Enlighten me". :? :?

dmclite-3.0

ThomThom wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

Incredible that some people still have to be enlighted why exactly this guy is a tiny bit worse than everyone else. At least on a forum about pro cycling.

No not incredible, just a different viewpoint, that is all. People are allowed to have differing opinions y'know.

So basically your viewpoint is that bullying and threatening isn't relevant?

Yes, it's incredible. Incredibly ignorant.

Nope, Ive read a lot about the LA doping affair, follwed the web and news about it and come to my conclusions. He isn't some despot or tyrant responsible for massive crimes. He just took drugs to make him cycle faster and covered it up, not the crime of the century, dissapointing and pointless in the long run, yes.

Thing is, I really, really wanted him not to have doped and was gutted when I realised he had and on such a massive scale. Placing some perspective on it though, he won't compete again, he has been outed and I doubt after this he will mean much to anyone. Such a shame all round really. Not good when your heroes are flawed, but getting angry and malicious is not going to change what has gone down. Lighten up and move on please.

thomthom

No one really cares that he doped. We can live with that. That's not the real issue (which you seem to ignore yet again.)

dennisn

ThomThom wrote:

No one cares that he doped. That's not the issue ......

I'm gonna need a bit of clarification about that statement. If you please.

nic_77

So... this (very weird) sports story has just broken here in the US...

http://deadspin.com/5976517/manti-teos- ... -is-a-hoax

The guy involved is hot property (likely first round draft) and his story has been one of the most significant narratives of the season. In short, his girlfriend died in September and yet he lead his team to the championship game and himself to the top of the individual rankings. Now it transpires that not only did his girlfriend not die, she didn't even exist. The big controversy is whether he is the victim of a the hoax or is somehow part of it himself.

Now, I'm not saying that LA has been pretending to be the dead girlfriend of a 255lbs Samoan defensive lineman, but he will be delighted with the timing of this story... I don't expect to hear much cycling coverage in the next few days / weeks!

Would be interested to know if this gets coverage in the UK?

dmclite-3.0

ThomThom wrote:

No one cares that he doped. That's not the issue (which you seem to ignore yet again.)

Not getting you on this one. Please stop with all the anger at me, I know he doped and I hate it and so do plenty of other people. You seem like a bitter little man, hating a person you do not know personally, hasn't really affected your life and you seem to be hell bent on foisting your opinion on others no matter their opinion, viewpoint and own conclusions. Get some perspective and leave it.

Richmond Racer

SURPRISE, SURPRISE...

Weisel managed Verbruggen's investments, and Och was the broker

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28488.html


(have to say, the WSJ has been absolutely killing it with the Lance story over the last week or so)

nathancom

Richmond Racer wrote:

SURPRISE, SURPRISE...

Weisel managed Verbruggen's investments, and Och was the broker

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28488.html


(have to say, the WSJ has been absolutely killing the Lance story over the last week or so)

Wow. Hein is a filthy c*nt.

And from that article

Montgomery [firm set up by Weisel to service Silicon Valley and Life Science companies] was a top underwriter and adviser to hundreds of high-growth companies, including Amgen Inc[who developed EPO]

You couldn't make it up.

Richmond Racer

nathancom wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

SURPRISE, SURPRISE...

Weisel managed Verbruggen's investments, and Och was the broker

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28488.html


(have to say, the WSJ has been absolutely killing the Lance story over the last week or so)

Wow. Hein is a filthy c*nt.

Tell us something we didnt know

Nick Fitt

Richmond Racer wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

SURPRISE, SURPRISE...

Weisel managed Verbruggen's investments, and Och was the broker

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28488.html


(have to say, the WSJ has been absolutely killing the Lance story over the last week or so)

Wow. Hein is a filthy c*nt.

Tell us something we didnt know

He was also the broker for Amgen, who we all know are laughingly the sponsors of the Tour of California. $2.7bn PA including the manufacturing of EPO of course.

So 7-Eleven, Motorola, USPS and Discovery have all been exposed as perpetrating drug use. Has anyone read this shower of shite?

" Team 7-Eleven: How an Unsung Band of American Cyclists Took on the World - And Won [Book] by Geoff Drake, Jim Ochowicz in Books

By Geoff Drake, Jim Ochowicz - VeloPress (2011) - Paperback - 322 pages - ISBN 1934030538
7-Eleven: America's Greatest Cycling Team is the first book to tell the full story of America's first and greatest pro cycling team. Founded in 1981 by Jim Ochowicz and Olympic medalist Eric Heiden and sponsored by the 7-Eleven chain of convenience stores, the team rounded up the best amateur cyclists in North America and formed them into a cohesive, European-style cycling team. As amateurs, they dominated the American race scene and won seven medals at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. As professionals, beginning in 1985, the team went to Europe and soon received invitations to the Tour of Italy and then the Tour de France, putting Americans on the podium in landmark victories that would change the face of American cycling forever. Prepared with the enthusiastic cooperation of the team members and co-authored by the team's founder, Jim Ochowicz, 7-Eleven is not only the most important missing piece in the story of American cycling, but the book that American cyclists have been waiting for ever since the 7-Eleven cowboys snagged that first yellow jersey."


From Wikipedia
The American cyclist Pat McDonough admitted to "blood doping" at the 1984 Los Angeles Games.[1] Following the games it was revealed that one-third of the U.S. cycling team had received blood transfusions before the games.[1] "Blood doping" was banned by the International Olympic Committee in 1985, though no test existed for it at the time.[1]

Sports Illustrated
"Anybody who tells me that removing athletes' blood or giving someone else's blood for transfusion into an athlete to try to improve performance is an O.K. thing to do—he's just nuts."

So said Dr. Irving Dardik, the director of a U.S. Olympic Committee investigative panel, after it was disclosed last week that seven members of the U.S. Olympic cycling team, including four medalists, one a champion, had "blood boosted" at the Los Angeles Games, and that another, Danny Van Haute, had done so at the July 5-7 trials.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

So, essentially then Jimbo appears to have been present in some way at all of the great US cycling achievements since the mid 80's. It would appear to me that he can be proud to say he has been around to see blood doping and systemic use of EPO in US cycling. What a guy, nothing matches this does it? Piecing this together, Armstrongs US coaching staff were all involved with or had links to either the Olympics in 84 or Ferrari (of course).

Whilst in 84 blood doping was not illegal, to me its clear the US has pioneered cheating in sport and probably wont ever stop.

Nick Fitt

Double post, deleted, apologies.

evidence11

in a few hours, the biggest liar will say the opposite things that he always wanted we believe, (http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/video/2013/ ... _3242.html) during a special movie, a sequence cinema, very well prepared and settled, in the word near, in the grin near !!!

ddraver

Even through something like Google Translate (which I suspect you ve used, bud, it's a terrible translation!), it's clear the the French write in such a beautiful way, far better than english.....

*sigh*