Armstrong gets rid of Catlin



Leafer said:
That may be true for the unshakeable diehards, but they are a very small minority. For the vast majority who still have some touch with reality, it's going to be quite a rude awakening.
It wasn't when news of positives from the '99 tour were reported.
It wasn't when his former masseuse alleged that she disposed of syringes for him.
It wasn't when Steve Swart claimed that he and Lance shot up while on the Motorola team.
It wasn't when his former personal assistant claimed that he found Andro in Armstrong's medicine cabinet.
It wasn't when the Andreu's testified that after his brain surgery, Armstrong admitted that he had used PEDs.

There is already a mountain of circumstantial evidence and a list of several people who were previously close to him who have publicly turned on him -- yet he's still a rock-star hero to cancer survivors and millions of cycling fans who choose not to believe that the man is a doper -- or who have decided that they don't care whether he is or isn't, because all cyclists dope.

These are rationalizations you can't fathom, because you haven't invested that kind of hope in him, nor have you vicariously shared in his cycling successes as a fellow cancer survivor (or family member of one).

If there's a "rude awakening" to be had here, it ought to have occurred a few years ago, when it should have become clear to all the Lance haters that nothing the man does, or nothing anyone says about him, is going to stop his many followers from believing that he is the subject of a malicious witch-hunt motivated by money, jealousy, or both. The more he is attacked, the more sympathetic he is in their eyes. And in that setting, his limitless arrogance is perceived as a virtue, not a flaw.
 
IH8LANCE said:
These are rationalizations you can't fathom, because you haven't invested that kind of hope in him, nor have you vicariously shared in his cycling successes as a fellow cancer survivor (or family member of one).
Like most people, I've had family members dealing with cancer over the past few years, but you're right, I haven't "invested that kind of hope" in LA cause I think it's remarkably stupid to "invest that kind of hope" in a sporting figure - like most people, I don't put much stock in the cult-of-personality mentality.

You are right in labeling them "rationalizations", though. That's all that they are.

If there's a "rude awakening" to be had here, it ought to have occurred a few years ago, when it should have become clear to all the Lance haters that nothing the man does, or nothing anyone says about him, is going to stop his many followers from believing that he is the subject of a malicious witch-hunt motivated by money, jealousy, or both. The more he is attacked, the more sympathetic he is in their eyes. And in that setting, his limitless arrogance is perceived as a virtue, not a flaw.
Then why it is that revenues - ie donations - to Livestrong have flat-lined (at about $28-$30 million) over the fiscal years '05-'07 (the most recent years for which revenue data is available)? Usually, a lack of growth in a charitable foundation indicates one of two things: either people are holding on to their money altogether (yet donations to the American Cancer Institute have increased consistently over that same time period), or people are choosing to send their money to an alternative charity.

My guess would be the latter - that as more people learn about LA the individual (not just that he was a doper, mind you, but his "tabloid" escapades after retirement as well), the lower their opinion of him becomes, and the less inclined - rightly or wrongly is irrelevant - people are to donate to a charity that is so closely associated with a person they consider to be of questionable character. (Personally, and this is just speculation on my part and I will be the first to admit that there's nothing to back it up, I think the flat-lining of Livestrong revenue - ie the stall in the growth of donations - was a prime motivator for the comeback. That is, it's a way of re-igniting the revenue stream.)

Or, to put it another, simpler way, methinks the fact that donations to Livestrong have flat lined over the past three years indicates that the "rude awakening" is already well underway. I also think donations will increase in the short term, ie with the comeback, and then fall off the map altogether when Lance is finally and fully exposed for the cheat and liar that he really is. Which will, eventually, happen.

And again, all of this could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if he had had the guts to come clean. But he didn't. So let the chips fall where they may.
 
Leafer said:
Or, to put it another, simpler way, methinks the fact that donations to Livestrong have flat lined over the past three years indicates that the "rude awakening" is already well underway.
These celebrity donation funds have a bell curve just like any other trend. The donations have "flatlined" because no 501(c)(3) that depends on the celebrity status of an individual can ever maintain an upward curve forever. He's not any less well-respected these days -- he's merely less "in".

And again, all of this could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if he had had the guts to come clean.
That is the worst thing he could ever do to both himself and his foundation. The only way his legions of fans will ever believe he did anything wrong is if he admits it to them. Armstrong is no saint - he's not stupid either. As I said earlier -- his steadfast defiance is part of his appeal. No matter who says what about him, he's never going to give anyone the pleasure of watching him squirm at one of those pathetic teary-eyed press conferences.
 
IH8LANCE said:
These celebrity donation funds have a bell curve just like any other trend. The donations have "flatlined" because no 501(c)(3) that depends on the celebrity status of an individual can ever maintain an upward curve forever. He's not any less well-respected these days -- he's merely less "in".
Actually, he's quite a bit less well respected these days.

That is the worst thing he could ever do to both himself and his foundation. The only way his legions of fans will ever believe he did anything wrong is if he admits it to them. Armstrong is no saint - he's not stupid either. As I said earlier -- his steadfast defiance is part of his appeal. No matter who says what about him, he's never going to give anyone the pleasure of watching him squirm at one of those pathetic teary-eyed press conferences.
Well then, it's going to continue to come out in dribs and drabs over an extended period of time or it'll come to light all at once by someone else's choosing (or someone else being forced to own up), to which he will have to deny, deny, deny, even when the denials become absolutely absurd to everyone and his brother (already at that point as it is, imo). Can't really see how making your followers look and feel like fools and dolts for believing all of your denials for so long could possibly be the better option in the long term, but whatever. I guess it'll always be Lance first, followers second.

One word from Bruyneel or Ferrari or Stapleton or Carmichael and its over. An admission from Hincapie, Landis, Hamilton, etc would do a hell of a lot of damage as well. All the various Motorola/USPS/Disco soigneurs, doctors, etc. McRae, Livingston, Vaughters, Danielson, various wives and girlfriends, not quite as damaging, but still adding to the pile. And that's just the few that I can think off of the top of my head. Even that is a lot of people Lance has to hope keeps their mouths shut. I wish him luck.
 
Leafer said:
Actually, he's quite a bit less well respected these days.
We'll agree to disagree there. If the tone of the media coverage relating to Armstrong is any indication, he's actually getting more deference these days, not less.


One word from Bruyneel or Ferrari or Stapleton or Carmichael and its over.
Possibly -- but you've just named the four people besides Armstrong for whom there would be the least personal benefit in becoming turncoat.

An admission from Hincapie, Landis, Hamilton, etc would do a hell of a lot of damage as well.
First of all, there's no motivation for any of these men to turn on Armstrong. Second, with respect to Landis and Hamilton -- they're the ones who the public AND the legal system have already concluded are liars. Their veracity in turning on Armstrong would be viewed as dubious at best.

All the various Motorola/USPS/Disco soigneurs, doctors, etc. McRae, Livingston, Vaughters, Danielson, various wives and girlfriends, not quite as damaging, but still adding to the pile.
The pile already exists - I listed it before. That's white noise to the many who believe in him. You have to remember, Lance is different than most cycling superstars, because the majority of his fans aren't necessarily cycling fans. They're Armstrong fans. They could care less what some soigneur says to Le Monde -- hell, they don't even know what a soigneur is.

I still think the only person who could ever conclusively bring Armstrong down is Armstrong himself. And he's too cagey to ever let that happen.
 
IH8LANCE said:
I tend to disagree -- The Cult of Lance is now so firmly ingrained among those who desperately believe in their hero, that unless you can find video of Lance injecting something clearly labeled "performance enhancement drug" into his ass, they will treat the inevitable "tell alls" as so much peripheral noise borne of people lying to make a dollar off of their relationship with Armstrong.

Did you ever see the Stewart/Wayne movie - "Death of Liberty Valance"? This is the same type of thing. Screw accuracy. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." There will always be controversy surrounding Armstrong's achievements, but among the millions who are already in his camp, I doubt that anything anyone says about him in the future will create more than a few detractors. In fact, all it's likely to do is make him a hero and a martyr.
How you been doin' these days, Wolfix?
 
LA's recent and numerous relationships, dumping Cheryl Crow when she found out she had cancer, the hollywood lifestyle, and glamour poses with Matt McCaunagay have been much more damaging to his reputation than any doping allegations.

Completely agree that the only way he goes down is if he admits it. All other evidence will remain circumstantial in the minds of his followers. If he admits it he will be seen as weak and banished to france.
 
Not sure what to make of this....
____

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI

The Tour of California – I refuse to call it by its sponsor's name until the race organisers and sponsors at least acknowledge the absurdity of an EPO manufacturer sponsoring a sporting event that has had terrible problems with the mis-use of the substance – started with a showdown in the press room.

You can watch the exchange on youtube for yourself, but the essence is that Kimmage asked Armstrong what it was he admired so much about the recently-returned dopers such as Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamilton.

Armstrong began by asking: “What was your name again?”

And this is where I feel his response loses credibility. It seems highly unlikely that Armstrong would not recognise by sight and sound the face and voice of Paul Kimmage, but in the grand theatre of the moment, it was important for Armstrong to begin the effort to undermine early.

Armstrong's response is measured and seems almost rehearsed, as if he knew the question was coming. He said: “When I decided to come back for what I think is a very noble reason, you said the cancer was back, meaning me.

“I am here to fight this disease, so I don't have to deal with it, I don't have to deal with it. It goes without saying, we're not going to sit down and do an interview. I don't think anyone in this room would sit down for that interview. You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that.”

He then goes on to answer the question and explain that David Millar 'got caught with his hand in the cookie jar”, Floyd Landis doesn't feel he did anything wrong and that he admired Ivan Basso.

The cookie jar comment, in particular, shows a complete lack of willingness to address doping in cycling as a serious issue, reducing it to the sort of thing a naughty schoolboy might do. That, surely, is not acceptable.

He added: “As a society, are we supposed to forgive? Absolutely.”

But forgiveness should be preceded by contrition. Millar's stance has been clear since joining Jonathan Vaughters's Slipstream team. Even Basso has admitted he made mistakes.

Where, though, was the condemnation of doping? Given a perfect opportunity to say once and for all that doping was unequivocally wrong, Lance Armstrong chose not to.

Now, you can say that spoken words are only so much hot air and that it's the easiest thing in the world to say one thing and do another. But to say nothing at all? That is surely bizarre.

It was classic Armstrong. Get the room on your side, narrow down the target and isolate them. “I'm not sure anyone in this room would sit down for an interview with you.” “I'm not sure anyone in the world would forgive you for that comment.”

Having met Paul Kimmage, I can say he is an intimidating character. He is the master of silence and he listens intently. In the end you become very aware of the sound of your own voice and begin to feel as if you are babbling. To be interviewed by him must be quite formidable because he has a knack of homing in on the salient point and not letting go, not letting you get away with poorly-explained half-statements.

I like him and I respect him for having the courage to sit in the front row and ask Armstrong a direct question about doping because I know that cannot have been easy.

I can see, though, that his comment in a radio interview – not as many seem to think in the Sunday Times – would have offended people.

It was a typically forthright comment. “The great cancer martyr… this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well, he is the cancer in this sport, and for two years this sport has been in remission. Now the cancer's back.”

It is harsh, inflammatory stuff, but it is also anchored in truth.

The irony is that if Kimmage had not said it, he would not have offered Armstrong the opportunity to divert the attention away by talking about cancer. The illness is emotive and emotional and as soon as you hear the word you feel yourself shrink away.

But if Kimmage's comments offended some, are the same people not offended that Armstrong is also using cancer?

Kimmage ended by saying: “You don't have a patent on cancer. I am interested in the cancer of doping in cycling. I exposed it. You come along and it disappears.”

He's right, Armstrong doesn't have a patent on cancer.

And if you watch the clip to the end, Armstrong does something else he does best. Having singled out his target, he gets the rest of the room on side. “Switching back to the Tour of California…” he said, to guffaws and applause.

That's it. Laugh it up. Let's not address the real issue.
 
oh!-man said:
Jimmy, I've responded to attacks and questions. Does this make me a troll? Hardly. Have I been less than truthful? If so, please cite the post(s
If you're not intentionally stirring the pot, then it's a sad day for humanity.
 
whiteboytrash said:
Not sure what to make of this....
____

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI

The Tour of California – I refuse to call it by its sponsor's name until the race organisers and sponsors at least acknowledge the absurdity of an EPO manufacturer sponsoring a sporting event that has had terrible problems with the mis-use of the substance – started with a showdown in the press room.
A truly pathetic performance by Armstrong.

Armstrong is just itching to tell the world what he really feels: that doping is a legitimate part of sport.
 
whiteboytrash said:
Not sure what to make of this....
____

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI

The Tour of California – I refuse to call it by its sponsor's name until the race organisers and sponsors at least acknowledge the absurdity of an EPO manufacturer sponsoring a sporting event that has had terrible problems with the mis-use of the substance – started with a showdown in the press room.

You can watch the exchange on youtube for yourself, but the essence is that Kimmage asked Armstrong what it was he admired so much about the recently-returned dopers such as Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamilton.

Armstrong began by asking: “What was your name again?”

And this is where I feel his response loses credibility. It seems highly unlikely that Armstrong would not recognise by sight and sound the face and voice of Paul Kimmage, but in the grand theatre of the moment, it was important for Armstrong to begin the effort to undermine early.

Armstrong's response is measured and seems almost rehearsed, as if he knew the question was coming. He said: “When I decided to come back for what I think is a very noble reason, you said the cancer was back, meaning me.

“I am here to fight this disease, so I don't have to deal with it, I don't have to deal with it. It goes without saying, we're not going to sit down and do an interview. I don't think anyone in this room would sit down for that interview. You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that.”

He then goes on to answer the question and explain that David Millar 'got caught with his hand in the cookie jar”, Floyd Landis doesn't feel he did anything wrong and that he admired Ivan Basso.

The cookie jar comment, in particular, shows a complete lack of willingness to address doping in cycling as a serious issue, reducing it to the sort of thing a naughty schoolboy might do. That, surely, is not acceptable.

He added: “As a society, are we supposed to forgive? Absolutely.”

But forgiveness should be preceded by contrition. Millar's stance has been clear since joining Jonathan Vaughters's Slipstream team. Even Basso has admitted he made mistakes.

Where, though, was the condemnation of doping? Given a perfect opportunity to say once and for all that doping was unequivocally wrong, Lance Armstrong chose not to.

Now, you can say that spoken words are only so much hot air and that it's the easiest thing in the world to say one thing and do another. But to say nothing at all? That is surely bizarre.

It was classic Armstrong. Get the room on your side, narrow down the target and isolate them. “I'm not sure anyone in this room would sit down for an interview with you.” “I'm not sure anyone in the world would forgive you for that comment.”

Having met Paul Kimmage, I can say he is an intimidating character. He is the master of silence and he listens intently. In the end you become very aware of the sound of your own voice and begin to feel as if you are babbling. To be interviewed by him must be quite formidable because he has a knack of homing in on the salient point and not letting go, not letting you get away with poorly-explained half-statements.

I like him and I respect him for having the courage to sit in the front row and ask Armstrong a direct question about doping because I know that cannot have been easy.

I can see, though, that his comment in a radio interview – not as many seem to think in the Sunday Times – would have offended people.

It was a typically forthright comment. “The great cancer martyr… this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well, he is the cancer in this sport, and for two years this sport has been in remission. Now the cancer's back.”

It is harsh, inflammatory stuff, but it is also anchored in truth.

The irony is that if Kimmage had not said it, he would not have offered Armstrong the opportunity to divert the attention away by talking about cancer. The illness is emotive and emotional and as soon as you hear the word you feel yourself shrink away.

But if Kimmage's comments offended some, are the same people not offended that Armstrong is also using cancer?

Kimmage ended by saying: “You don't have a patent on cancer. I am interested in the cancer of doping in cycling. I exposed it. You come along and it disappears.”

He's right, Armstrong doesn't have a patent on cancer.

And if you watch the clip to the end, Armstrong does something else he does best. Having singled out his target, he gets the rest of the room on side. “Switching back to the Tour of California…” he said, to guffaws and applause.

That's it. Laugh it up. Let's not address the real issue.
ewww
 
whiteboytrash said:
What a crack up ! Catlin must feel like a real **** now knowing that he was used for a media show. Bruyneel/Armstrong haven't changed a bit. This is their finest work. Surely that 1 mill from the TDU could have been used for the testing ? and to why can Basso post all of his data & Armstrong not ?

I love this. Note VeloNews has yet to report the story.
ree
 
jimmypop said:
A truly pathetic performance by Armstrong.

Armstrong is just itching to tell the world what he really feels: that doping is a legitimate part of sport.

Now that Lance has warmed the crowds telling us all he'll be more open this time around I suspect he's back with Ferrari again ? or that he never left him but just needed to make a soft impact on announcing the comeback. He's right back to his ******** ways. Still there is enough fools out there judging by the **** I read on another sites to lap all this feces up.

I wonder what the poor old French teams think about all of this.
 
whiteboytrash said:
Now that Lance has warmed the crowds telling us all he'll be more open this time around I suspect he's back with Ferrari again ? or that he never left him but just needed to make a soft impact on announcing the comeback. He's right back to his ******** ways. Still there is enough fools out there judging by the **** I read on another sites to lap all this feces up.

I wonder what the poor old French teams think about all of this.
I imagine them sitting around a camp fire somewhere. The warm glow of the flames dancing across their faces as they stare at each other in contemplation of the season proper. After a long silence one opens frank discourse with some captain obvious, "Well we cant ride completely clean now. He will destroy us. We HAVE to take something, anything! He will destroy us otherwise."

And so the sport once again develops a stutter, a gump leg, an uncontrollable dribble from the corner of the mouth like a child in a mentally vegetative state.
 
Geoff Vadar said:
I imagine them sitting around a camp fire somewhere. The warm glow of the flames dancing across their faces as they stare at each other in contemplation of the season proper. After a long silence one opens frank discourse with some captain obvious, "Well we cant ride completely clean now. He will destroy us. We HAVE to take something, anything! He will destroy us otherwise."

And so the sport once again develops a stutter, a gump leg, an uncontrollable dribble from the corner of the mouth like a child in a mentally vegetative state.
This post is simply awesome.
 
Geoff Vadar said:
I imagine them sitting around a camp fire somewhere. The warm glow of the flames dancing across their faces as they stare at each other in contemplation of the season proper. After a long silence one opens frank discourse with some captain obvious, "Well we cant ride completely clean now. He will destroy us. We HAVE to take something, anything! He will destroy us otherwise."

And so the sport once again develops a stutter, a gump leg, an uncontrollable dribble from the corner of the mouth like a child in a mentally vegetative state.
"When I began to think about coming back, I knew that because there had been questions in the past, many of which we considered to be unfounded, I knew that there would be questions about performance. Like there are questions about all kinds of performance, if it's a 100 metre dash at the Olympic Games or if it's the 100 metre free style at the Olympic Games, people will question good performances, and I doubt that I can perform well.
But in the off chance that I do perform well, I didn't want to leave any doubt, and so I reached out to Don and asked him to oversee this program, to be completely independent, completely removed, for me to do whatever he asked me, I would do whatever he asked me to do. I think it's a landmark program. I think it's the first time where an athlete can actually be totally validated in the chance that he's successful.

In my opinion is that Don Catlin is beyond reproach. He is one of the foremost researchers in the Anti-Doping Movement. His CV is a mile long and I don't need to try to repeat it, but I have told Don and I told him last night and I will continue to tell him this. Don I have myself, I have my bicycle and I have my cause, you come whenever and however you want to come in order to validate these performances. And I felt like that was an important part of this equation as well."
 
lancecopie.jpg


55xcopie.jpg

Catlin is not needed!:D
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
22
Views
723
Road Cycling
Bob Schwartz
B