Did Lance Armstrong start WWIII?



Because you and your cohorts are so easily amused by this widespread doping said:
TEXAS BBQ's.... aaaaaahhhhh. Yes. I am originally from Texas. Nothing like a Texan BBQ. Been to a few..... And I am sure that there were a few convicted dopers there too ..... Not performing enhancing kind though ..... Some BBQ, some beer, and some Willie Nelson in the background ...... Yeah ....... Maybe Lance and Cheryl will show up ..... Of course I heard Lance is over in France doing a bike ride on one of those 10 speeds.....
 
"Anderson admitted in a deposition that he actually had no direct knowledge whatso ever of Armstrong actually taking a banned substance. "

" If I had seen { Armstrong }taking something I knew was wrong , that would be different. But it was only a HUNCH , and I left it at that. I have an opinion. I have suspicions. But beyond that, that's all I can say about it."

Mike Anderson

Ya gotta love the hunch thing ..... It's a good thing that 'Hunches" are not fact, because I have this "hunch' tabout you FLYER ........
 
You might want to speak with some of LA's other former employees and teammates.

That might enlighten you so you would not need to assume the incorrect position all the time.

Perhaps, not all of them have executed confidentiality agreements.

But we now know---that illegal doping, evaded USADA are illegal acts, and cannot be covered by secrecy agreements. Still, the finanacial consequences are in place for intimidation of any whistleblowers.

It's a road oft traveled in the case of Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter, David Francis and Gerrick Latta.



wolfix said:
"Anderson admitted in a deposition that he actually had no direct knowledge whatso ever of Armstrong actually taking a banned substance. "

" If I had seen { Armstrong }taking something I knew was wrong , that would be different. But it was only a HUNCH , and I left it at that. I have an opinion. I have suspicions. But beyond that, that's all I can say about it."

Mike Anderson

Ya gotta love the hunch thing ..... It's a good thing that 'Hunches" are not fact, because I have this "hunch' tabout you FLYER ........
 
bspeedy00 said:
btw: missing during a USADA notice is not and ACTUAL positive. Just an assumed one, but you seem to like assumptions so whatever.

But it carries sanctions of a minimum of 3 months to a maximum of 2 years. (Refer to WADA code 2.4 and 10.4.3). WADA consider this type of testing to be critical to effective doping control so sanctions exist to deter athletes from avoiding testing by deliberately evading tests.

You would only make yourself scarce if you had concerns about the outcome of the surprise testing.

I would have no doubt that LA would be rallying his forces to refute these events as alleged by Anderson. However, WADA would have on record if they attempted to conduct an Unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing at that location on that particular date and were unsuccessful. And, if so, they would have had notes on persons they contacted in their attempts to locate LA.
 
VeloFlash said:
But it carries sanctions of a minimum of 3 months to a maximum of 2 years. (Refer to WADA code 2.4 and 10.4.3). WADA consider this type of testing to be critical to effective doping control so sanctions exist to deter athletes from avoiding testing by deliberately evading tests.

You would only make yourself scarce if you had concerns about the outcome of the surprise testing.

I would have no doubt that LA would be rallying his forces to refute these events as alleged by Anderson. However, WADA would have on record if they attempted to conduct an Unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing at that location on that particular date and were unsuccessful. And, if so, they would have had notes on persons they contacted in their attempts to locate LA.
Dont take my comments out of context. I know the sanctions that such a violation carries, but you must concede that it is not an ACTUAL positive. Further, there is no "ONLY" reason behind missing a test. Catastrophes do occur. Back to the point, I have not heard of an official Lance-awol from WADA or USADA, but you are right that they should have record of such an event.
 
Velo Flash:

Since WADA has few staff employees--and no authority to conduct tests for cycling federations---it is the US-Anti-Doping Agency personnel that must be subpoenaed.

Perhaps WADA had an observer along that day, and if so, that person can testify as well.

Are those records secret? Have they been tampered with? Can we get access to USADA past testing activities?

Of note: LA & CSE have circled the wagons around Derek Russey & John Korioth. They have both signed written affidavits of 'non-denial denials'.

If USADA or WADA agents contradict these sworn statements, then the real fun will begin.

Richard Nixon was ultimately forced to resign over the 'cover-up' and not the 'burglary break in' of a psychiatrist's office. Cover ups can be slippery.


VeloFlash said:
But it carries sanctions of a minimum of 3 months to a maximum of 2 years. (Refer to WADA code 2.4 and 10.4.3). WADA consider this type of testing to be critical to effective doping control so sanctions exist to deter athletes from avoiding testing by deliberately evading tests.

You would only make yourself scarce if you had concerns about the outcome of the surprise testing.

I would have no doubt that LA would be rallying his forces to refute these events as alleged by Anderson. However, WADA would have on record if they attempted to conduct an Unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing at that location on that particular date and were unsuccessful. And, if so, they would have had notes on persons they contacted in their attempts to locate LA.
 
House said:
Give it up, Flyer is a lonely man looking for attention. He is in his own twisted world. I feel sorry for him.


No you don't. If you did you would not insult me dozens of times. Twisted does apply here.

You made it very clear that you are not sorry for me. Rather you are angry with me and feel that name calling and insults were warranted despite lots of witnesses and specific names posted--as per your request. You are a broken record of name calling.

Your nature is well known and your false attempt at engendering sympathy is as cold and empty as is your position on doping in sport.
 
Talk about a pissing contest.


1) Lance has a falling out with employee Anderson
2) He has Bart Knaggs terminate him----2 months pay and insists upon a secrecy agreement as a condition.
3) Anderson is surprised by the secrecy agreement--and won't sign--wants to think about it.
4) LA goes increasingly anger and threatens WWIII if Anderson won't sign off on the agreement and settle.
5) Anderson hires two attorneys
6) Bill Stapleton (CSE) then gets involved and specifically asks for a settlement proposal from Anderson's lawyer--again reminding Anderson's lawyer that WWIII will break out if we do not settle.
7) A mutual friend (Derek Russey) telephone calls Anderson strongly urging him to settle. (Why? What did he care? None of his business, unless he was asked to call by Armstrong/Stapleton?)
8) Anderson's attorney makes a settlement offer as directed by Stapleton. $500,000 split $300,000 for Anderson and $200,000 for the two attorneys.
9) No response from CSE or Stapleton.
10) LA/ Luke David file a lawsuit.
11) Anderson files a counter claim
12) World War III is breaking out---but it is not fully reported by the US media. Only the steroid part.

Neither legal action seems to have any merit whatsoever.

If Armstrong is guilty of doping, that is a USADA matter.

If Anderson is lying----why did Armstrong strike first and just make it worse and more public?

Why not settle in private?

Are these people really such novices in business matters.

When public relations duties are not handled by his corporate sponsors--he and CSE bungle it.

It would appear so.

Stay tuned.
 
Wow 3 posts in a row from Flyer. I didn't read what they said, but keep em coming as I'm sure the server on the other end needs more exercise.
 
bspeedy00 said:
Sunk my ship? You make me laugh, but no you didnt do anything besides recycle the same. Aside from my criticism of the french media, read my criticism of oral testimony. You conveniently ignored that, and responded with of the same he-said-she-said garbage. It does not matter where you read it, the case is based on oral testimony, and I prefer the "innocent until proven guilty".

Further, you put more spin on facts than any news agency know to man.
1.) lance disappearing: you assume that him being unavailable for a couple hours is evidence? maybe he had car trouble, maybe he decided to go shopping, and maybe he just had to ****.

2.) Flying Michelle Ferrari to visit, stay, etc.: Lance has outwardly acknowledged that he is a friend, but logic tells us that correlation does not imply causation, so there is no evidence that his friendship indicates that lance dopes, just that he is friends with Ferrari. Lance is not responsible for the actions of Ferrari, nor is he responsible for knowing everything that Ferrari has or hasnt done. Hell, even if Lance knew, he could simply disagree with his friends decision.

3.) Email: So what if lance was delighted by his blood chemistry. Remember that lance had cancer? They test blood chemistry often, and you assume that it is in regard to illegal blood chemistry. June 2004 is five years after his initial recovery from cancer, aka the official time period sugggested to say "cancer free". That is just a coincidence though right?

YOU have spun his activities as suspicious, and rely on numerous assuptions.

Being an American, you won't be aware of the extremely high profile case involving Manchester Utd's Rio Ferdinand. http://worldsoccer.about.com/cs/theposts/a/rioman.htm
a little exercise - go through and replace the name Rio Ferdinand with Lance Armstrong....

He has just served a 9 month suspension for missing a drug's test. His defense - I went shopping and forgot about it. But, sorry, rules are rules and you don't miss a drugs test because, yes, that is assumed to be a positive test (why would you evade taking a test?)

You have made some stupid counter arguments before, but to write off Armstrong missing a drugs test with a 'so what'? is just ludicrous. I presume you would like to see an effective testing policy in the sport? Yet your hero misses a test and it's no big deal? Sorry, but I suggest you closely examine the hypocrisy of your stance.
 
micron said:
Being an American, you won't be aware of the extremely high profile case involving Manchester Utd's Rio Ferdinand. http://worldsoccer.about.com/cs/theposts/a/rioman.htm
a little exercise - go through and replace the name Rio Ferdinand with Lance Armstrong....

He has just served a 9 month suspension for missing a drug's test. His defense - I went shopping and forgot about it. But, sorry, rules are rules and you don't miss a drugs test because, yes, that is assumed to be a positive test (why would you evade taking a test?)

You have made some stupid counter arguments before, but to write off Armstrong missing a drugs test with a 'so what'? is just ludicrous. I presume you would like to see an effective testing policy in the sport? Yet your hero misses a test and it's no big deal? Sorry, but I suggest you closely examine the hypocrisy of your stance.
Stupid counter arguments? Care to give an example big shot? For one, yes catastrophes can happen, and one could miss a drug test. It would be a big mistake, but people make mistakes. You can not conclude that the individual must be hiding if such a incident were to occur. Second, there is no evidence that Lance missed a test in the first place (at least that I have seen), so your "great point" is pretty unimportant.

I really wish people would learn a bit about formal logic before going off on some rant. Both you and Flyer should really learn how to think, before trying to persuade.
 
micron said:
Being an American, you won't be aware of the extremely high profile case involving Manchester Utd's Rio Ferdinand. http://worldsoccer.about.com/cs/theposts/a/rioman.htm
a little exercise - go through and replace the name Rio Ferdinand with Lance Armstrong....

He has just served a 9 month suspension for missing a drug's test. His defense - I went shopping and forgot about it. But, sorry, rules are rules and you don't miss a drugs test because, yes, that is assumed to be a positive test (why would you evade taking a test?)

You have made some stupid counter arguments before, but to write off Armstrong missing a drugs test with a 'so what'? is just ludicrous. I presume you would like to see an effective testing policy in the sport? Yet your hero misses a test and it's no big deal? Sorry, but I suggest you closely examine the hypocrisy of your stance.
By using this case as an example you just help make Anderson look worse. If one of the best defenders in the world, who happens to be a member of the biggest team in the world (and one of if not the most powerfull team and manager in the world) can get a suspension for this then there is no way the USADA conveniently forgets about this missed test. Keep in mind this is an organization that has yet to close Hamiltons case for further investigation a month after the hearing and is so strict in their testing that a pro rider had them show up after he retired and wanted to ban him for refusing to take the test. Note how your hero, only sticks to the Tour when talking about how champions never get busted...because his theory falls apart if he does.
 
TDF Champions NEVER get busted. It's very bad for business!

The last time a wearer of a TDF yellow jersey was disqualified was on July 16, 1978 atop l'Alpe d'Huez.

Michel Pollentier had just won the stage by dropping Bernard Hinulta et al.... and was awarded the yellow jersey.

After arriving for his urine sample delivery his covert rubber bladder and hose device malfunctioned and he was exposed as a cheat.

Pollentier was NOT a TDF Champion. If he were, this story may never have been told.

TDF Champions are exempt from doping controls. Even Pantani had no trouble in the TDF, the Giro, yes.

In 2005, for the very first time WADA will have observers at the Tour--so maybe, just maybe Lance will lose this TDF?
 
bspeedy00 said:
I really wish people would learn a bit about formal logic before going off on some rant. Both you and Flyer should really learn how to think, before trying to persuade.

If we undersand you correctly, you mean to ignore objective data and just concentrate on commercial scripted themes created by and for the use of the 'endorsed athlete'

If that is formal logic, what is informal?

Comments by Greg Lemond, Stephen Swartz, Greg Strock, Ericj Kaiter, Emily O'Reily, Christophe Bassons, Filippo Simeoni, and Mike Anderson are universally presumed to be jealous lies.

Thanks for the free advice. It's worth what we paid.
 
Flyer said:
Talk about a pissing contest.


1) Lance has a falling out with employee Anderson
2) He has Bart Knaggs terminate him----2 months pay and insists upon a secrecy agreement as a condition.
3) Anderson is surprised by the secrecy agreement--and won't sign--wants to think about it.
4) LA goes increasingly anger and threatens WWIII if Anderson won't sign off on the agreement and settle.
5) Anderson hires two attorneys
6) Bill Stapleton (CSE) then gets involved and specifically asks for a settlement proposal from Anderson's lawyer--again reminding Anderson's lawyer that WWIII will break out if we do not settle.
7) A mutual friend (Derek Russey) telephone calls Anderson strongly urging him to settle. (Why? What did he care? None of his business, unless he was asked to call by Armstrong/Stapleton?)
8) Anderson's attorney makes a settlement offer as directed by Stapleton. $500,000 split $300,000 for Anderson and $200,000 for the two attorneys.
9) No response from CSE or Stapleton.
10) LA/ Luke David file a lawsuit.
11) Anderson files a counter claim
12) World War III is breaking out---but it is not fully reported by the US media. Only the steroid part.

Neither legal action seems to have any merit whatsoever.

If Armstrong is guilty of doping, that is a USADA matter.

If Anderson is lying----why did Armstrong strike first and just make it worse and more public?

Why not settle in private?

Are these people really such novices in business matters.

When public relations duties are not handled by his corporate sponsors--he and CSE bungle it.

It would appear so.

Stay tuned.



The suit initially filed by Armstrong was for declaratory relief-- that is, to have a declaration from the court that there was no contract between Armstrong and Anderson regarding future employment or to fund his bike shop. I can tell you that it is not at all unusual to take the initiative and file such suits for declaratory relief as a preemptive measure-- I do it for clients all the time. Given the fact that Anderson made the outrageous demand of $500k (for what? building bike trails at Armstrong's ranch?), the actions of Armstrong's attorneys in filing the initial suit are understandable.

As for the phone call made to Anderson by Russey, I don't think that's unusual either. Anderson was already represented by counsel, so Armstong and his representatives could not contact Anderson directly. So, I'm guessing they wanted someone to try and talk to Anderson to see if any resonable result could be negotiated, without the presence of his lawyers, who are apparently taking 40% of any recovery.

If Anderson isn't lying, why wouldn't Armstrong settle instead of taking the initiative and filing suit? Why didn't he settle for $500k Well, on its face, it seems like a preposterous amount, and could open up the floodgates for all kinds of "hangers-on" who think they have provided services for Armstrong.

I'm not sure you can gauge the expertise of Mr. Stapleton and the lawyers representing Armstrong by reading the headlines. The press is notroiously ignorant when it comes to reporting on legal disputes.
 
Flyer said:
bspeedy00 said:
I really wish people would learn a bit about formal logic before going off on some rant. Both you and Flyer should really learn how to think, before trying to persuade.

If we undersand you correctly, you mean to ignore objective data and just concentrate on commercial scripted themes created by and for the use of the 'endorsed athlete'

If that is formal logic, what is informal?

Comments by Greg Lemond, Stephen Swartz, Greg Strock, Ericj Kaiter, Emily O'Reily, Christophe Bassons, Filippo Simeoni, and Mike Anderson are universally presumed to be jealous lies.

Thanks for the free advice. It's worth what we paid.

You are awful blind, or perhap you cant read. As I pointed out earlier, oral testimony is not objective data. What is so hard to understand about that? You seem to think Lance is capable of a huge lie, well why isnt everyone else, since those against him have more to gain?

As a general question: Why would lance dope? You say money, but he has more money than God. Fame? No, he could have retired famous after one, two, or three TdF wins. Power/Influence? Oh, wait, already has money, and already famous. The fundamental reason behind doping is not there for Lance. Can you think of some other reason for him to risk his livelihood? If anyone chooses to answer this, lets stay away from the propoganda and random useless facts or hearsay.
 
bspeedy00 said:
As a general question: Why would lance dope? You say money, but he has more money than God. Fame? No, he could have retired famous after one, two, or three TdF wins. Power/Influence?

I never said these things?

w/o doping you are unemployed as racer. This is where it begins. From there, it develops comensurate with a career and ego (self-esteem) and addiction.
 
Great points, all:

In fact, initially the media only picked up on the alleged discovery of a box of steroids. It still lags the reporting of the subsequent pleadings.

Because 'steroids' and 'scandal are now a media theme after 50 years of supression (cover up and hero worshiping). This newest theme will pass too, but at present, it supplants the tired theme of the athlete as a pure hero/warrior.

Lance has his Cancer Survivor special consideration that a Barry Bonds does not possess, thus is still dressed in a white cape.

Stapleton & Knaggs (CSE) are acting as agents, not attorneys. But they seem to be bullied by LA as much as LA bullies his enemies.

Now a professional attorney is on the job. The actions and responces, the affidavids were intitated by him in a pro-active and responsible manner.

Stapleton & Knaggs are now out of the loop.

Legally, this entire case is very weak, on all sides.

My only interests are 1) whether a violation of USADA testing occurred in 2004, 2) why Michele Ferrari needs a secret code name; 'Schumi' and 3) why Ferrari requires specialized taxi schuttle service.

btw: The $500,000 proposed settlement (and TDF jersey, and some othere items) was solicitated by Bill Stapleton---'before WWIII breaks out', his words.

The offer was faxed to CSE. No response from CSE, whatsoever.

The LA lawsuit/action followed.


I think $500,000 was very reasonable given the damage that has thus occurred.











kennf said:
The suit initially filed by Armstrong was for declaratory relief-- that is, to have a declaration from the court that there was no contract between Armstrong and Anderson regarding future employment or to fund his bike shop. I can tell you that it is not at all unusual to take the initiative and file such suits for declaratory relief as a preemptive measure-- I do it for clients all the time. Given the fact that Anderson made the outrageous demand of $500k (for what? building bike trails at Armstrong's ranch?), the actions of Armstrong's attorneys in filing the initial suit are understandable.

As for the phone call made to Anderson by Russey, I don't think that's unusual either. Anderson was already represented by counsel, so Armstong and his representatives could not contact Anderson directly. So, I'm guessing they wanted someone to try and talk to Anderson to see if any resonable result could be negotiated, without the presence of his lawyers, who are apparently taking 40% of any recovery.

If Anderson isn't lying, why wouldn't Armstrong settle instead of taking the initiative and filing suit? Why didn't he settle for $500k Well, on its face, it seems like a preposterous amount, and could open up the floodgates for all kinds of "hangers-on" who think they have provided services for Armstrong.

I'm not sure you can gauge the expertise of Mr. Stapleton and the lawyers representing Armstrong by reading the headlines. The press is notroiously ignorant when it comes to reporting on legal disputes.
 
re: The telephone call to Anderson from Derek Russey, still a LA contractee landscaper may not be unusual from a tactical legal perspective, but it is bizarre that such an unsolicitated telephone call from a so-called neutral friend would seek to interfere with an employment dispute--which presumably he is not fully privy to.

The unsolicitated advice to settle with a hash ultimatum (threats against family & career) as a direct consequence of noncompliance with this request, is wholly unethical and wrong.

Derek Russey cannot be trusted and his affidavid is fishy and scripted. Now we know why.

LA, Inc. got to that boy!
 
Flyer said:
re: The telephone call to Anderson from Derek Russey, still a LA contractee landscaper may not be unusual from a tactical legal perspective, but it is bizarre that such an unsolicitated telephone call from a so-called neutral friend would seek to interfere with an employment dispute--which presumably he is not fully privy to.

The unsolicitated advice to settle with a hash ultimatum (threats against family & career) as a direct consequence of noncompliance with this request, is wholly unethical and wrong.

Derek Russey cannot be trusted and his affidavid is fishy and scripted. Now we know why.

LA, Inc. got to that boy!

You say that $500k is reasonable given the damage done. What, exactly was the damage? The as-yet unproven breach of a vague oral promise? It certainly can't be based on Anderson's loss of employment-- he was paid a nominal amount and Armstrong had the right to fire him at will (Texas is an "at-will" employment state) as long as it wasn't based on age, race or another "protected class". If I were to fire a personal assistant and he threatens me with a lawsuit (and possibly also threatens to reveal certain facts that have nothing to do with the contract dispute) and demands $500k, I would sure as hell threaten him back with scorched-earth litigation (WWIII).

As for the affidavits, here's a news flash-- they are always "scripted" and are typically prepared by the attorneys. Bear in mind that the people signing such affidavits are invariably deposed later on, and are cross examined with respect to the statements made in the affidavits.

Reading the full deposition transcripts of all witnesses involved may provide some insight. But unless we have that opportunity, we're just making wild guesses about the events that transpired. And again, don't ever really on the newspaper's descriptions of the court documents or proceedings-- you sometimes need a litigation background to separate the b.s. from the important facts.

As for Michelle Ferrari's "secret code name" Schumi, could it possibly be based on the fact that Michael Schumacher drives for Ferrari? Hmmm. Devious. And if I'm a multi-millionaire and a friend visits from Italy, I would probably send a car for him rather than make him take a $50 cab ride from the airport.

I think the whole USADA testing issue may very well fall by the wayside in this dispute, as it should. While it may be important in an investigation by USADA (we still haven't heard them speak), it is nothing but "noise" in the contract dispute, and it's doubtful a judge would ever let it into evidence.

If Anderson prevails in his contract dispute, will he still open up a bikeshop? And if he does, will anyone in Austin go to it after all this press?