Lance Armstrong Won't Fight Usada Charges
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
"nike has the brass to stand with lance! you are either with us or you are against us!"--so sayeth the prophet, bobbo.
looks like capitalism is making its view known.
Ref your comment
what's the use? you can **** on some bugger's shoes and convince him it's raining. you will most likely be able to separate him from his money, too.
Why do you feel the need to be insulting the moment people disagree with you or don't fully fall into line with your opinions.
As for the concept that the other riders haven't spoken and were barely aware of each other are you serious? I know not whether LA is guilty or not. The concept of him having sufficient personality to browbeat and bully 26 other grown riders into doping is laughable. If they're that wet then they really are questionable characters and very questionable witnesses. Presumably TT could have browbeaten them also.
Just because something is in a report doesn't make it so. I've seen reports I've known were blatant fantasy. They held sway and the large corporates I worked in put them out as the truth. When the great and the good get behind something it must be so. Is LA powerful? Of course. Is LA more powerful that the UCI and other cycling structures - come on? This doesn't paint anybody in sports administration in a particularly good light.
Do I trust TT? No. Do I trust any of the cycling authorities? No. I think they're incompetent, complacent, arrogant and self righteous (I haven't seen that changing much except for the fact that USADA are now claiming a halo as well). Their claims that the sport is now clean and the bad times are now over now that they've deposed LA, I suspect will prove as false as the idea that all the previous Tour winners were clean also.
They're all as bad as one another.
what's the use? you can **** on some bugger's shoes and convince him it's raining. you will most likely be able to separate him from his money, too.
Why do you feel the need to be insulting the moment people disagree with you or don't fully fall into line with your opinions.
As for the concept that the other riders haven't spoken and were barely aware of each other are you serious? I know not whether LA is guilty or not. The concept of him having sufficient personality to browbeat and bully 26 other grown riders into doping is laughable. If they're that wet then they really are questionable characters and very questionable witnesses. Presumably TT could have browbeaten them also.
Just because something is in a report doesn't make it so. I've seen reports I've known were blatant fantasy. They held sway and the large corporates I worked in put them out as the truth. When the great and the good get behind something it must be so. Is LA powerful? Of course. Is LA more powerful that the UCI and other cycling structures - come on? This doesn't paint anybody in sports administration in a particularly good light.
Do I trust TT? No. Do I trust any of the cycling authorities? No. I think they're incompetent, complacent, arrogant and self righteous (I haven't seen that changing much except for the fact that USADA are now claiming a halo as well). Their claims that the sport is now clean and the bad times are now over now that they've deposed LA, I suspect will prove as false as the idea that all the previous Tour winners were clean also.
They're all as bad as one another.
You missed the part where there were 26 witnesses who provided testimony consistent with their previous testimony and consistent with each other's testimony. That in itself is pretty damning. How exactly do you support the idea that all 26 witnesses lied to the feds and/or USADA? You understand, don't you, that the feds take perjury very seriously and our quite willing to put people in jail for that. The idea that Armstrong is powerless is doesn't hold water. Witness the experience of Filipo Simeoni, who did nothing to Armstrong, providing only evidence of Simeoni's doping and the actions and involvement of Michele Ferrari. Part of his reward for that was Armstrong, for no racing reason whatsoever, chased down Simeoni's break group, making threats and threatening gestures to Simeoni for the whole world to see on TV. You should note that Armstrong made no threats at all to the other riders in the break. The idea that Armstrong was more powerful than the UCI is not one that, as far as I know, anyone has suggested. You do not have to be more powerful than an agency to deceive it. You can be more creative than an agency, and likewise an agency can put forth a sub-par effort at performing some of it's duties. I also don't believe anyone has suggested that cycling is 100% clean right now. The suggestion has been that cycling is more clean than it has been in quite a while does hold water. Performance trends at the TdF over the last few years compared to trends in the 90's and early 00's show that performance (with speed being the metric) has decreased, something that would be expected if doping in the peloton had decreased.nonns said:
Yeah, no sweat. If I was the chairman and face of the organization I'd step down too if I wasn't guilty of the charges against me. Makes perfect sense. Nothing to be read into that...nothing at all...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nike-terminate-armstrongs-contract
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nike-terminate-armstrongs-contract
--to nonns, you made reference to what you felt was a paltry sum of money paid to ferrari and concluded (i paraphrase) that you couldn't believe armstrong used illegal methods to win the tdf's. i really have no concern in your acceptance or rejection of the usada reasoned decision. discount it all you want, but when you make a point and others rebut your point, don't play the victim if i think you to be foolish in your continued defence of armstrong based upon your reading of the financial matters exposed in the report. (honestly, i could play some game of linguistic gymnastics and point that i never actually called you a fool or ****** on your shoes or took your money from you, but, in truth, i did and do think you foolish for taking the position you have.)
i'm unsure where you are going with "other riders haven't spoken" tack, but no one at any time suggested armstrong personally browbeat 26 riders to dope. several came to it of their own accord (hamilton, for one), others were on the various armstrong teams and still maintain their innocence (and were usually not on the tdf teams), and one was indeed browbeaten into doping while on postal/discovery (revisit the sections concerning c vande velde's position within the team on pages 59 and following or, perhaps the simeoni section or the bassons section--as those latter two examples were done in public by armstrong and had a definite impact on both the riders browbeaten and the riders in the peloton who witnessed the acts). other than your inflation of the number or purposeful misstating the report, you might at least do us the favour of getting those bits right in your posts.
as for your contention that reports sometimes contain falsehoods? yes, they do. but the mechanism which brings that attempt at manipulation down is called peer review. state whatever falsehoods you want in an academic report and others in the field (the peers) will rebut and correct and discredit the report. should a business state falsely that their assets and earnings are such, the accountants who advise brokerage firms will be calling foul when they discover that the numbers don't add up. in fine, the falsities live for a time, if only because they have to come forward before anyone can review the findings. the fun thing now is that usada have put forward their findings for peer (and general public) review. and, to be blunt, armstrong and his agents continue to have this case tried in the press (a dead end tactic, as the journo's can read, too). if armstrong, fabbiani and henman have any problems with the usada decision they had the right to go before the arbitration panel, and to cas on appeal and swiss courts on final appeal.
what i ultimately see is that you will not accept the report. you are welcome to that foggy world where armstrong never doped or, if he did, it's okay 'cause everybody else was doing it and that forced armstrong to do it, or whatever you like to think. i will give you this bit of advice--should you like to continue in a debate like this, please quote the relevant sections of the report which inform your opinions. that will make it easier for all to understand what your point is and why you hold that position.
i'm unsure where you are going with "other riders haven't spoken" tack, but no one at any time suggested armstrong personally browbeat 26 riders to dope. several came to it of their own accord (hamilton, for one), others were on the various armstrong teams and still maintain their innocence (and were usually not on the tdf teams), and one was indeed browbeaten into doping while on postal/discovery (revisit the sections concerning c vande velde's position within the team on pages 59 and following or, perhaps the simeoni section or the bassons section--as those latter two examples were done in public by armstrong and had a definite impact on both the riders browbeaten and the riders in the peloton who witnessed the acts). other than your inflation of the number or purposeful misstating the report, you might at least do us the favour of getting those bits right in your posts.
as for your contention that reports sometimes contain falsehoods? yes, they do. but the mechanism which brings that attempt at manipulation down is called peer review. state whatever falsehoods you want in an academic report and others in the field (the peers) will rebut and correct and discredit the report. should a business state falsely that their assets and earnings are such, the accountants who advise brokerage firms will be calling foul when they discover that the numbers don't add up. in fine, the falsities live for a time, if only because they have to come forward before anyone can review the findings. the fun thing now is that usada have put forward their findings for peer (and general public) review. and, to be blunt, armstrong and his agents continue to have this case tried in the press (a dead end tactic, as the journo's can read, too). if armstrong, fabbiani and henman have any problems with the usada decision they had the right to go before the arbitration panel, and to cas on appeal and swiss courts on final appeal.
what i ultimately see is that you will not accept the report. you are welcome to that foggy world where armstrong never doped or, if he did, it's okay 'cause everybody else was doing it and that forced armstrong to do it, or whatever you like to think. i will give you this bit of advice--should you like to continue in a debate like this, please quote the relevant sections of the report which inform your opinions. that will make it easier for all to understand what your point is and why you hold that position.
It's a lie don't ya know. He's a victim in all this. It's a conspiracy.
The interweb is a great resource but the cult members here of the Livestrong brigade are getting a tad tiresome now.
i do miss musette, though. and blue train. sure, they may be here under new names, but they would be quite amusing to watch as they tried to discredit, discount and dissemble their way around the report.
by the bye, ta for the link to the beeb's broadcast from the other night. made for some interesting listening.
Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner.
Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.
Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.
yep, won't be too much longer before you will find impoverished kids in the third world wearing indianapolis colt 2010 super bowl t-shirts and livestrong ball caps on their way to the sweatshops and all that in the name of the corporate charitable contribution tax deduction.
$1,029,754.31 paid to Ferrari by Armstrong over 10 years. In other news, Anheuser-Busch killed its sponsorship of Armstrong, too. Do all the companies have "good character" clauses, and if so, are they going to go after Armstrong to get their money back?
interesting question. these corporations profited from the association with armstrong's image at that time. in cutting their association now, in light of the revelations, they are protecting their brand image in the here and now and, presumably, tomorrow (and, the character clauses generally are the escape clause for corporations to get out of any future payments to a toxic endorser). would they have any "moral" high ground to stand on? it's not as though they will refund the profits to those who were silly enough to drink michelob ultra light because armstrong was paid to hold a bottle of it. oddly enough, i think they received the value of the advertising bucks at the time and should let the matter pass without legal cases being filed.
I'll bet at least SCA promotions will try to get their money back. In other news, here's a good post refuting the "everyone does it so it should be legal" argument.
One of the other shoes just dropped: Trek has dumped Armstrong. Lance doesn't have many friends left in his playhouse.
--to nonns, you made reference to what you felt was a paltry sum of money paid to ferrari and concluded (i paraphrase) that you couldn't believe armstrong used illegal methods to win the tdf's. i really have no concern in your acceptance or rejection of the usada reasoned decision.
But clearly you do as you seem to be all het up.
I do not accept a report as a means to persecute someone. I accept a report as a means to continue to perhaps a case in a court of law. I accept good hard evidence and a court case where the evidence and the defence can be heard and where a clear judgement can be made. I think thats fair.
discount it all you want, but when you make a point and others rebut your point, don't play the victim if i think you to be foolish in your continued defence of armstrong based upon your reading of the financial matters exposed in the report. (honestly, i could play some game of linguistic gymnastics and point that i never actually called you a fool or ****** on your shoes or took your money from you, but, in truth, i did and do think you foolish for taking the position you have.)
Playing the victim? No I simply fail to see why you feel the need to call people names. It isn't necessary.
I am not defending LA. I am simply sceptical about some of the claims made. Some of what is in the report is true. The idea that LA is a doping and criminal mastermind capable of manipulating and controlling many people in positions of power is quite hard to believe. It also paints not a particularly flattering picture of the participants in the sport, the companies supporting it or the authorities responsible for its governance.
i'm unsure where you are going with "other riders haven't spoken" tack, but no one at any time suggested armstrong personally browbeat 26 riders to dope. several came to it of their own accord (hamilton, for one), others were on the various armstrong teams and still maintain their innocence (and were usually not on the tdf teams), and one was indeed browbeaten into doping while on postal/discovery (revisit the sections concerning c vande velde's position within the team on pages 59 and following or, perhaps the simeoni section or the bassons section--as those latter two examples were done in public by armstrong and had a definite impact on both the riders browbeaten and the riders in the peloton who witnessed the acts). other than your inflation of the number or purposeful misstating the report, you might at least do us the favour of getting those bits right in your posts.
On the number of riders - my sincerest apologies for my typo. I am currently attempting to shift from two fingered to touch typing and I am finding it hard - fat fingers reign supreme (numbers and the bottom row of the keyboard appear to be somewhat difficult for me to get to consistently). The number was mistyped and no I'm not playing silly games. Ultimately though the number matters not. I have personally witnessed large numbers of people conspiring and colluding to produce stories and to bully others. I have rarely witnessed an individual who is not the most senior leader within an organisation achieve the same thing. So whether its 10 or 20 or 26 or 50 or whatever. when people with the character of the ones providing the information come out with stuff and they all have a vested interest in doing so I am sceptical. The problem I have with all of these people is that they were not credible previously - in fact they were proven cheats and liars. Now they have provided information which TT wants to hear and which suits him they suddenly become instantly credible. Their testimonies might be the gospel truth but I have to say I struggle not to be sceptical.
as for your contention that reports sometimes contain falsehoods? yes, they do. but the mechanism which brings that attempt at manipulation down is called peer review. state whatever falsehoods you want in an academic report and others in the field (the peers) will rebut and correct and discredit the report. should a business state falsely that their assets and earnings are such, the accountants who advise brokerage firms will be calling foul when they discover that the numbers don't add up. in fine, the falsities live for a time, if only because they have to come forward before anyone can review the findings. the fun thing now is that usada have put forward their findings for peer (and general public) review. and, to be blunt, armstrong and his agents continue to have this case tried in the press (a dead end tactic, as the journo's can read, too). if armstrong, fabbiani and henman have any problems with the usada decision they had the right to go before the arbitration panel, and to cas on appeal and swiss courts on final appeal.
Oh me oh my. My eyes are opened. The truth is revealed. Who'd have thought a peer review worked like that. Who'd have thought that accountants and brokerage firms and asset reporting works in that way.
One might perhaps want to question a peer review by the people who have previously produce a sub par performance in attempting to detect individuals who have been looking to mislead them especially when the people they are relying on are as crooked as all hell.
TT is as guilty of using the press for his own ends as LA.
what i ultimately see is that you will not accept the report.
See my comment above as to what I will accept.
you are welcome to that foggy world where armstrong never doped or, if he did, it's okay 'cause everybody else was doing it and that forced armstrong to do it, or whatever you like to think.
I have not said that Armstrong never doped (I hope that he didn't but smoke and fire etc. suggests that it might not have been the case - ultimately that puts him in a similar position to probably most of the other past Tour podium placings no worse and no better). I have simply said that I am not sure that he ever doped and I think there's enough reasons why he shouldn't have to make me think there needs to be further investigation and more evidence gathered. If USADA is so right then get LA in a court room and have him proven guilty (I will cheer if they do this cos then justice will be served regardless of outcome). If they can't then stop with this. If he's judged guilty in a court of law I'll accept it no problem at all. I don't think its more right for LA to dope than anyone else and I don't think that doping is a good thing and have never said I do. What I object to is singling LA out over all the other dopers. If it was down to me there would be genuine zero tolerance on doping. If you were a doper you would be stripped of all titles and banned for life - never to be readmitted to the sport. If you were involved in the sort of things that LA is alleged to have been involved in you would almost certainly end up being tried in a criminal court and be sent down if adjudged to be guilty. My problem with all that is going on is that LA may well end up getting his just deserts but the justice is somewhat arbitrary. Contadope has been allowed to compete again with nary a pause. Previous Tour podium winners known to have doped keep their titles. Greg Lemond would have us believe that he alone is lily white whilst competing against Fignon - come on. I suspect they have all doped. I suspect that there probably isn't a single race result that shouldn't have been null and voided. I would kick them all out and kick out any rider who dopes having made it clear that that is what the outcome would be if you were caught. The biggest damage to the sport has been done not by LA but by the sporting authorities and the sponsoring organisations who don't keep a closer eye on things and who are happy enough to reap the rewards as long as the naughty stuff is swept under the carpet. I find the hypocracy in the sport to be remarkable and distasteful. Either USADA and frankly the other doping authorities should start similar investigations on all past TdF winners having pursued LA or they should drop it. Once and for all clean things up and show that cheating doesn't work no matter how long after the event it is and no matter who or what you are - if thats the route they want to pursue. I think that pursuing LA for cheating historically and stopping there is a dangerous thing.
i will give you this bit of advice--should you like to continue in a debate like this, please quote the relevant sections of the report which inform your opinions. that will make it easier for all to understand what your point is and why you hold that position.
Thank you for the advice - I'm honoured. Are you in the habit of calling people fools when you debate? Its an interesting approach.
But clearly you do as you seem to be all het up.
I do not accept a report as a means to persecute someone. I accept a report as a means to continue to perhaps a case in a court of law. I accept good hard evidence and a court case where the evidence and the defence can be heard and where a clear judgement can be made. I think thats fair.
discount it all you want, but when you make a point and others rebut your point, don't play the victim if i think you to be foolish in your continued defence of armstrong based upon your reading of the financial matters exposed in the report. (honestly, i could play some game of linguistic gymnastics and point that i never actually called you a fool or ****** on your shoes or took your money from you, but, in truth, i did and do think you foolish for taking the position you have.)
Playing the victim? No I simply fail to see why you feel the need to call people names. It isn't necessary.
I am not defending LA. I am simply sceptical about some of the claims made. Some of what is in the report is true. The idea that LA is a doping and criminal mastermind capable of manipulating and controlling many people in positions of power is quite hard to believe. It also paints not a particularly flattering picture of the participants in the sport, the companies supporting it or the authorities responsible for its governance.
i'm unsure where you are going with "other riders haven't spoken" tack, but no one at any time suggested armstrong personally browbeat 26 riders to dope. several came to it of their own accord (hamilton, for one), others were on the various armstrong teams and still maintain their innocence (and were usually not on the tdf teams), and one was indeed browbeaten into doping while on postal/discovery (revisit the sections concerning c vande velde's position within the team on pages 59 and following or, perhaps the simeoni section or the bassons section--as those latter two examples were done in public by armstrong and had a definite impact on both the riders browbeaten and the riders in the peloton who witnessed the acts). other than your inflation of the number or purposeful misstating the report, you might at least do us the favour of getting those bits right in your posts.
On the number of riders - my sincerest apologies for my typo. I am currently attempting to shift from two fingered to touch typing and I am finding it hard - fat fingers reign supreme (numbers and the bottom row of the keyboard appear to be somewhat difficult for me to get to consistently). The number was mistyped and no I'm not playing silly games. Ultimately though the number matters not. I have personally witnessed large numbers of people conspiring and colluding to produce stories and to bully others. I have rarely witnessed an individual who is not the most senior leader within an organisation achieve the same thing. So whether its 10 or 20 or 26 or 50 or whatever. when people with the character of the ones providing the information come out with stuff and they all have a vested interest in doing so I am sceptical. The problem I have with all of these people is that they were not credible previously - in fact they were proven cheats and liars. Now they have provided information which TT wants to hear and which suits him they suddenly become instantly credible. Their testimonies might be the gospel truth but I have to say I struggle not to be sceptical.
as for your contention that reports sometimes contain falsehoods? yes, they do. but the mechanism which brings that attempt at manipulation down is called peer review. state whatever falsehoods you want in an academic report and others in the field (the peers) will rebut and correct and discredit the report. should a business state falsely that their assets and earnings are such, the accountants who advise brokerage firms will be calling foul when they discover that the numbers don't add up. in fine, the falsities live for a time, if only because they have to come forward before anyone can review the findings. the fun thing now is that usada have put forward their findings for peer (and general public) review. and, to be blunt, armstrong and his agents continue to have this case tried in the press (a dead end tactic, as the journo's can read, too). if armstrong, fabbiani and henman have any problems with the usada decision they had the right to go before the arbitration panel, and to cas on appeal and swiss courts on final appeal.
Oh me oh my. My eyes are opened. The truth is revealed. Who'd have thought a peer review worked like that. Who'd have thought that accountants and brokerage firms and asset reporting works in that way.
One might perhaps want to question a peer review by the people who have previously produce a sub par performance in attempting to detect individuals who have been looking to mislead them especially when the people they are relying on are as crooked as all hell.
TT is as guilty of using the press for his own ends as LA.
what i ultimately see is that you will not accept the report.
See my comment above as to what I will accept.
you are welcome to that foggy world where armstrong never doped or, if he did, it's okay 'cause everybody else was doing it and that forced armstrong to do it, or whatever you like to think.
I have not said that Armstrong never doped (I hope that he didn't but smoke and fire etc. suggests that it might not have been the case - ultimately that puts him in a similar position to probably most of the other past Tour podium placings no worse and no better). I have simply said that I am not sure that he ever doped and I think there's enough reasons why he shouldn't have to make me think there needs to be further investigation and more evidence gathered. If USADA is so right then get LA in a court room and have him proven guilty (I will cheer if they do this cos then justice will be served regardless of outcome). If they can't then stop with this. If he's judged guilty in a court of law I'll accept it no problem at all. I don't think its more right for LA to dope than anyone else and I don't think that doping is a good thing and have never said I do. What I object to is singling LA out over all the other dopers. If it was down to me there would be genuine zero tolerance on doping. If you were a doper you would be stripped of all titles and banned for life - never to be readmitted to the sport. If you were involved in the sort of things that LA is alleged to have been involved in you would almost certainly end up being tried in a criminal court and be sent down if adjudged to be guilty. My problem with all that is going on is that LA may well end up getting his just deserts but the justice is somewhat arbitrary. Contadope has been allowed to compete again with nary a pause. Previous Tour podium winners known to have doped keep their titles. Greg Lemond would have us believe that he alone is lily white whilst competing against Fignon - come on. I suspect they have all doped. I suspect that there probably isn't a single race result that shouldn't have been null and voided. I would kick them all out and kick out any rider who dopes having made it clear that that is what the outcome would be if you were caught. The biggest damage to the sport has been done not by LA but by the sporting authorities and the sponsoring organisations who don't keep a closer eye on things and who are happy enough to reap the rewards as long as the naughty stuff is swept under the carpet. I find the hypocracy in the sport to be remarkable and distasteful. Either USADA and frankly the other doping authorities should start similar investigations on all past TdF winners having pursued LA or they should drop it. Once and for all clean things up and show that cheating doesn't work no matter how long after the event it is and no matter who or what you are - if thats the route they want to pursue. I think that pursuing LA for cheating historically and stopping there is a dangerous thing.
i will give you this bit of advice--should you like to continue in a debate like this, please quote the relevant sections of the report which inform your opinions. that will make it easier for all to understand what your point is and why you hold that position.
Thank you for the advice - I'm honoured. Are you in the habit of calling people fools when you debate? Its an interesting approach.
Similar threads
