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

inseine

ddraver wrote:

Can someone tell me where Armstrong says something incorrect in the BBC interview please?

As in factually wrong, not just something that makes us a bit uncomfortable

I can't prove it as factually wrong (but he can't prove it as correct...) but I take issue with this;

'If you take me back to 1995 when it was completely and totally pervasive, I'd probably do it again. I look at everything when I made that decision, when my teammates, and the whole peloton made that decision.'

ddraver

genuine question - why?

inseine

ddraver wrote:

genuine question - why?

Chris Boardman

deejay

ddraver wrote:

Can someone tell me where Armstrong says something incorrect in the BBC interview please?

He doesn't have to because it is just the fact he won't lie down and accept his fate.
It is "He" that keeps the subject in the public's eye as he finds new ways to keep his name in the Media.
The Media are only too willing to use his controversial name to make more money.

We all want to forget him and that some sort of Ghost won those 7 TDF's, but this time we have one of his biggest Fanboi's still trying to justify the Scumbag.

VerwoodAsh (sorry but you published this)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

That is Matt Slater of the BBC who did (when Armstrong was at the height of his Frauds) ban some of us on the BBC 606 Forum for saying anything to rubbish this Clown Armstrong.
The BBC could not say a word against Armstrong or those other Scumbags Deutsche Telekom (who started before LA and continued long after him)

The Media should just ignore the Scumbag and let us all get on with our lives (never mind him, let him Rot) but they won't and so this thread will get much longer.
Gawd Help Us.

The_Boy

...

ugo.santalucia

The question is whether we should listen to former dopers or only listen to former clean riders... problem is in the latter scenario, there won't be much to listen to... or learn from...

I say Armstrong's opinions are welcome, then you can do what you want with them... but whatever he says can be potentially interesting...

ugo.santalucia

deejay wrote:

That is Matt Slater of the BBC who did (when Armstrong was at the height of his Frauds) ban some of us on the BBC 606 Forum for saying anything to rubbish this Clown Armstrong.
.

Have you thought that maybe you were banned for the way you say things rather than what you actually say? If you were around back then, I suppose you are not a teenager anymore, so it's time to abandon that kind of language and be a bit more civilised. Just saying...

ddraver

deejay wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Can someone tell me where Armstrong says something incorrect in the BBC interview please?

He doesn't have to because it is just the fact he won't lie down and accept his fate.
It is "He" that keeps the subject in the public's eye as he finds new ways to keep his name in the Media.
The Media are only too willing to use his controversial name to make more money.

We all want to forget him and that some sort of Ghost won those 7 TDF's, but this time we have one of his biggest Fanboi's still trying to justify the Scumbag.

VerwoodAsh (sorry but you published this)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

That is Matt Slater of the BBC who did (when Armstrong was at the height of his Frauds) ban some of us on the BBC 606 Forum for saying anything to rubbish this Clown Armstrong.
The BBC could not say a word against Armstrong or those other Scumbags Deutsche Telekom (who started before LA and continued long after him)

The Media should just ignore the Scumbag and let us all get on with our lives (never mind him, let him Rot) but they won't and so this thread will get much longer.
Gawd Help Us.

So, just to check I'm right, your anger is that he is still in the media whatsoever then?

graeme_s-2

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The question is whether we should listen to former dopers or only listen to former clean riders... problem is in the latter scenario, there won't be much to listen to... or learn from...

I say Armstrong's opinions are welcome, then you can do what you want with them... but whatever he says can be potentially interesting...

I haven't watched the BBC interview yet, but I'm sure I will do as I just can't help myself.

However, around the time of the Oprah interview I came to the realisation that the only thing I believe about Lance Armstrong is that he's a liar. I try to remind myself of this every time I hear him speak.

thomthom

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/01/andre ... n-nothing/

ugo.santalucia

Graeme_S wrote:

I haven't watched the BBC interview yet, but I'm sure I will do as I just can't help myself.

However, around the time of the Oprah interview I came to the realisation that the only thing I believe about Lance Armstrong is that he's a liar. I try to remind myself of this every time I hear him speak.

A good slice of the folks that get to that kind of poularity are liars... politicians are liars, why would Armstrong not be a liar? You have to filter, because he does have interesting things to say. Whether you want to forgive or not it is entirely up to you... personally I do not care the slightest about Armstrong lie... it was just another (bigger) lie in the sea of lies... what he did with Livestrong might be a vanity project, but it might have helped a lot of people directly or indirectly, it's not all bad... bankers who simply stole millions and spent them in Champagne and prostitutes get away with less grief

Zerotails99

deejay wrote:

The Media should just ignore the Scumbag and let us all get on with our lives (never mind him, let him Rot) but they won't and so this thread will get much longer.
Gawd Help Us.

You don't seem to keen on ignoring him either and getting on with your life. You sound very angry.

graeme_s-2

ugo.santalucia wrote:

A good slice of the folks that get to that kind of poularity are liars... politicians are liars, why would Armstrong not be a liar? You have to filter, because he does have interesting things to say. Whether you want to forgive or not it is entirely up to you... personally I do not care the slightest about Armstrong lie... it was just another (bigger) lie in the sea of lies... what he did with Livestrong might be a vanity project, but it might have helped a lot of people directly or indirectly, it's not all bad... bankers who simply stole millions and spent them in Champagne and prostitutes get away with less grief

I wasn't really making a morality judgement, or suggesting he did or did not deserve his punishment. I was just stating that I don't believe anything he says now. Because he's a liar.

ugo.santalucia

Graeme_S wrote:

I wasn't really making a morality judgement, or suggesting he did or did not deserve his punishment. I was just stating that I don't believe anything he says now. Because he's a liar.

I take you do not vote...

inseine

ddraver wrote:

genuine question - why?

you didn't like my answer?

graeme_s-2

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

I wasn't really making a morality judgement, or suggesting he did or did not deserve his punishment. I was just stating that I don't believe anything he says now. Because he's a liar.

I take you do not vote...

Funnily enough I voted for the Lib Dems at the last election and I certainly won't ever vote for them again because... you get the idea!

ddraver

inseine wrote:

ddraver wrote:

genuine question - why?

you didn't like my answer?

No, I see your point. Boardman is an exception and could probably join the same club as Cadel Evans.

However i do think that for the vast majority of the peloton doping was just part of life and probably hardly even a big deal. I sightly run out of patience with the constant references to riders (in some mythical 4th division) that would have been TdF champion if Armstrong hadnt doped - usually forgetting about Pantani, Ullrich, Indurain, Zabel, Riis etc etc

inseine

ddraver wrote:

inseine wrote:

ddraver wrote:

genuine question - why?

you didn't like my answer?

No, I see your point. Boardman is an exception and could probably join the same club as Cadel Evans.

However i do think that for the vast majority of the peloton doping was just part of life and probably hardly even a big deal. I sightly run out of patience with the constant references to riders (in some mythical 4th division) that would have been TdF champion if Armstrong hadnt doped - usually forgetting about Pantani, Ullrich, Indurain, Zabel, Riis etc etc

Of course you're right, and it might seem pedantic to point that out they weren't ALL doped. Not so much if you were one of the riders that was clean..(I only used Boardmans name because he is one of the few that most people agree on).

ugo.santalucia

ddraver wrote:

I sightly run out of patience with the constant references to riders (in some mythical 4th division) that would have been TdF champion if Armstrong hadnt doped - usually forgetting about Pantani, Ullrich, Indurain, Zabel, Riis etc etc

First 20 of the 1999 TdF. I have starred those riders directly involved or part of teams involved in doping scandals at the time

Lance Armstrong (US Postal) 91hr 32min 16sec *
Alex Zülle (Banesto) @ 7min 37sec *
Fernando Escartin (Kelme) @ 10min 26sec *
Laurent Dufaux (Saeco) @ 14min 43sec *
Angel Luis Casero (Vitalicio Seguros) @ 15min 11sec *
Abraham Olano (ONCE) @ 16min 47sec *
Daniele Nardello (Mapei) @ 17min 2sec *
Richard Virenque (Polti) @ 17min 28sec *
Wladimir Belli (Festina) @ 17min 37sec *
Andrea Peron (ONCE) @ 23min 10sec *
Kurt Van De Wouwer (Lotto) @ 23min 32sec
David Etxebarria (ONCE) @ 26min 41sec *
Tyler Hamilton (US Postal) @ 26min 53sec *
Stéphane Heulot (FDJ) @ 27min 58sec
Roland Meier (Cofidis) @ 28min 44sec *
Benoît Salmon @ 28min 59sec
Alberto Elli (Telekom) @ 33min 39sec *
Paolo Lanfranchi (Mapei) @ 34min 14sec *
Carlos Contreras (Kelme) @ 34min 53sec *
Georg Totschnig (Telekom) @ 37min 10sec *

inseine

ugo.santalucia wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I sightly run out of patience with the constant references to riders (in some mythical 4th division) that would have been TdF champion if Armstrong hadnt doped - usually forgetting about Pantani, Ullrich, Indurain, Zabel, Riis etc etc

First 20 of the 1999 TdF. I have starred those riders directly involved or part of teams involved in doping scandals at the time

Lance Armstrong (US Postal) 91hr 32min 16sec *
Alex Zülle (Banesto) @ 7min 37sec *
Fernando Escartin (Kelme) @ 10min 26sec *
Laurent Dufaux (Saeco) @ 14min 43sec *
Angel Luis Casero (Vitalicio Seguros) @ 15min 11sec *
Abraham Olano (ONCE) @ 16min 47sec *
Daniele Nardello (Mapei) @ 17min 2sec *
Richard Virenque (Polti) @ 17min 28sec *
Wladimir Belli (Festina) @ 17min 37sec *
Andrea Peron (ONCE) @ 23min 10sec *
Kurt Van De Wouwer (Lotto) @ 23min 32sec
David Etxebarria (ONCE) @ 26min 41sec *
Tyler Hamilton (US Postal) @ 26min 53sec *
Stéphane Heulot (FDJ) @ 27min 58sec
Roland Meier (Cofidis) @ 28min 44sec *
Benoît Salmon @ 28min 59sec
Alberto Elli (Telekom) @ 33min 39sec *
Paolo Lanfranchi (Mapei) @ 34min 14sec *
Carlos Contreras (Kelme) @ 34min 53sec *
Georg Totschnig (Telekom) @ 37min 10sec *

The point isn't that it wasn't a lot, it was, the point is that it wasn't ALL.

ddraver

True, but the other point is that although Kurt van de Wouwer may never have cheated (and if it's true, then he deserved a medal), it does not therefore follow that he would have won the 1999 TdF

josame

ddraver wrote:

True, but the other point is that although Kurt van de Wouwer may never have cheated (and if it's true, then he deserved a medal), it does not therefore follow that he would have won the 1999 TdF

Yes it does and it proves he would have won it by 5mins 27sec

ic.

ddraver wrote:

True, but the other point is that although Kurt van de Wouwer may never have cheated (and if it's true, then he deserved a medal), it does not therefore follow that he would have won the 1999 TdF

If he's the first finisher that didn't break a rule of the sport, then he won.

Maybe he wasn't the fastest or the most talented or the strongest guy in the race, maybe some of the dopers in front would have beaten him if they had obeyed the rules. But they didn't. They chose to break the rules and therefore their result doesn't count. They gave up their chance to race clean and be included in the results.

It might be embarrassing to have to keep re-writing the record books, or for guys to have to keep posting the trophy and yellow jersey to the next guy in line when they've been caught, but it's only fair to the guys that didn't cheat.

If you cheated during the competition, then you broke the rules and you're out.

So Kurt van de Wouwer is my winner of the 99 Tour until such time as he's caught or heavily implicated in an act that broke the rules of the competition. Well done to him, great guy.

I'd like to see all cheaters have their wins removed, not just LA. But I do think LA is deserving of his lifetime ban. We don't need him in sport of any kind. He's a lying numpty who wouldn't know the truth if he got an injection of it.

He also needs to stop talking about himself in the third person. Creating sounds bites and quotes. He knows he's doing it, trying to put words in people's mouth and control the narrative as always

He also need to stop saying things like "I'm not going to say [A, B, C], I'm not even going to say [D, E, & F]"

You just did muppet. An we can see what you're doing when you say that. "Here's a line I want out there in the public domain, but I don't want people to think I started it". He's always done it. Annoys me.

He looks old.

ugo.santalucia

When you remove a winner, you are left with a non winner... Pereiro would never win the Tour de France... he is just not a winner. Andy Schleck could have won it and in fact should have won it, whether he was cleaner than Contador is very questionable.

deejay

ddraver wrote:

deejay wrote:

We all want to forget him and "that some sort of Ghost won those 7 TDF's", but this time we have one of his biggest Fanboi's still trying to justify the Scumbag.

VerwoodAsh (sorry but you published this)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

That is Matt Slater of the BBC who did (when Armstrong was at the height of his Frauds) ban some of us on the BBC 606 Forum for saying anything to rubbish this Clown Armstrong.
The BBC could not say a word against Armstrong or those other Scumbags Deutsche Telekom (who started before LA and continued long after him)
The Media should just ignore the Scumbag and let us all get on with our lives (never mind him, let him Rot) but they won't and so this thread will get much longer.
Gawd Help Us.

So, just to check I'm right, your anger is that he is still in the media whatsoever then?

That needs a reply.
Anger about him is so far from my feelings these days and you miss the point of my post and the Anger that I have.
My anger is the BBC and that idiot Matt Slater who just won't give up their Hero Worshiping of people who have admitted their frauds.
My anger is they can still put their views, but what was on their 606 cycling forum they could "Moderate" the post if it differed from them and finally Ban the poster altogether.
This from a public service broadcaster that should tolerate Free Speech.
Now that makes me angry but not the Texan who I now enjoy seeing him squirm and wriggle on the subject of cycling.

ddraver

deejay, i am not trying to attack you here...but for the record, I don't see much hero worship from the BBC or the recent article. In fact the "Peddlars: Cycling's Dirty Truth" shows they did with Chappers or Colin Murry were one of the better bits of coverage I heard/read.

For another record, your posts do come across as containing quite a bit of anger...

IC - I get your point. I think USADA did a lot of damage in just giving him a blanket ban as there is no getting away from the reality that it is so out of proportion to the sanctions Armstrong's peers received. If they had, for example, banned him for 6 months for taking banned substances like the Garmin Crowd but then banned him "separately" for his part in running the team doping, pressurising them to dope etc then they could have effectively achieved the same result but not given him such a very large out.

I think dear Travis got a bit evangelical about himself toward the end of the process...

ugo.santalucia

inseine wrote:

The point isn't that it wasn't a lot, it was, the point is that it wasn't ALL.

I would not bet on that... antidoping hasn't got a 100% rate of success, some slipped through the net.

deejay

ddraver wrote:

deejay, i am not trying to attack you here.....

You were not thrown off the BBC Cycling Forum then. ??
Many people were and Matt Slater was the moderator (I'm pretty sure)
There are others who were on this Forum that had the same treatment.
I surely cannot be the only one left here among all those that give denison the stick.

tailwindhome

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance- ... iot,37866/

ocdupalais

I'll be disappointed if the sandman dennisn doesn't drop by to rub sand in our eyes as we sleep... His pinger must go off every time this thread is bumped.