Latest Armstrong Lawsuit & doping



Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Add this legal dispute to the growing list;

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/wires/03/31/2080.ap.cyc.armstrong.lawsuit.0710/index.html

David Walsh

Pierre Balaster

The London Times

Emily O'Reily

SCA Event Insurance

Filippo Simeoni

Mike Anderson & androstenine discoveries & doping admission by Lance.

Add these legal actions to Greg lemond & former teammate Stephen Swartz who claim LA is an EPO user.

Add it to Lance's four junior teammates who are suing USA Cycling for doping them in 1990.

I think you have a solid case for doping.
 
btw: This substance (Androstenine) that Mike Anderson claims to have found in Lance's bathroomin early 2004 is often used in conjuction with Nandrolone.

These products are fairly easy to detect in urine.

So, if Lance Armstrong is using what he keeps in his bathroom---and he has not failed a doping control since 1999, then he is, in fact not being tested whatsoever for anything.

One of my cycling firends (and former pro) told me, that the only activity going on inside a doping control tent---or van involving a TDF Champion---is an autograph session and reading a copy of USA Today.

Such are the dope-free perks of winning.

Again, business trumps Corinthean Sport.
 
Flyer,
I am no obnoxious Lance fan (although I thoroughly enjoy watching him race), and don't have any firm stance on either side of the overall doping issue, but will you at least admit that there is little to no credibility involved in this latest allegation? Given the facts of THIS case (don't try to drag other issues into it) as we know them, can any intelligent person NOT see the lack of credibility here on the part of the accuser?

Feel free to rant on about all the things you are passionate about, but to include this latest case as more "evidence" only seems to weaken your argument, in my mind.

Am I to believe that I am "insulting Mike Anderson's intelligence" by being suspicious of him given the facts that we know? Please, that statement by him greatly insults MY intelligence...
 
roadhog said:
Flyer,
I am no obnoxious Lance fan (although I thoroughly enjoy watching him race), and don't have any firm stance on either side of the overall doping issue, but will you at least admit that there is little to no credibility involved in this latest allegation? Given the facts of THIS case (don't try to drag other issues into it) as we know them, can any intelligent person NOT see the lack of credibility here on the part of the accuser?

Feel free to rant on about all the things you are passionate about, but to include this latest case as more "evidence" only seems to weaken your argument, in my mind.

Am I to believe that I am "insulting Mike Anderson's intelligence" by being suspicious of him given the facts that we know? Please, that statement by him greatly insults MY intelligence...


Exactly!

Dude, all I got out of this is that there is some guy trying to sue Lance and he is using any means necessary to win his case. This is by far the weakest allegation of the Lance Witch hunt that you have posted to date. Sorry, man, real weak.
 
Maybe so. But is using steroid allegation more dishonest than is actually using them, but denying it.

Maybe Greg Lemond ought to be sued as well. He claims Amstrong admitted ot EPO use.

Why has not Amrstrong sued him?

Is that weak too?





snyper0311 said:
Exactly!

Dude, all I got out of this is that there is some guy trying to sue Lance and he is using any means necessary to win his case. This is by far the weakest allegation of the Lance Witch hunt that you have posted to date. Sorry, man, real weak.
 
Flyer said:
Maybe so. But is using steroid allegation more dishonest than is actually using them, but denying it.

Maybe Greg Lemond ought to be sued as well. He claims Amstrong admitted ot EPO use.

Why has not Amrstrong sued him?

Is that weak too?
Flyer , you need to post that article where Greg Lemond stated that Lance is a EPO user....... I need to see that ......
 
wolfix said:
Flyer , you need to post that article where Greg Lemond stated that Lance is a EPO user....... I need to see that ......
Better go double strap in your cleats-----before you pop out.

It has been posted several times already.

Limerickman has the post---exerpted quotations from David Walsh's book. Greg says more too.

Amazingly, while LA is presently involved with at least six (6) lawsuits---including Emily O'Reily--LA did not sue Lemond for libel. Why not?

Maybe Greg knows where both the bodies & drugs are buried? And maybe LA is just posturing for his sponsors benefit.

Gotta keep up a commercial image.

Take a page out of Kobe Braynt's life.

Lemond absence from a LA lawsuit is as suspicious as is LA & Chris Carmichael's absence from the 1990/1991 USCF/USA Cycling doping Juniors suit.

Sorry you cannot connect the dots.
 
Greg Lemond, Emily O'Reily, Stephen Swartz, Lance's four Junior teammates, Michele Ferrari's conviction for malparatice and abuse of a pharmacist----and now Mike Anderson.

Oh yeah it's weak. One at a time---or in taken as a whole. The entire TDF scene changed from 1998. We went from 100% doped to ZERO in 11 months.
Then a cancer patient dominated the TDF for 6 six years--during which many deaths and doping discoveries occurred. (none at the TDF though)

The TDF is a commercial show---doping compliance is not part of it.


Lies are often more powerful than the truth.

The truth hurts and a lie feels good.

Just plan on discrediting lots of future doping news in 2005. It's going to be a busy year for disclosure.
 
Sure sign of a troll: When asked to actually post a link to the story he keeps mentioning he doesn't do it, comes up with a bunch of BS instead. Everyone is laughing as your pathetic attempts to make everyone hate cycling.
 
Flyer... Roadhog is right in my opinion. You can't use Anderson's statements as proof. Especially since he said that he put the vial back but Armstrong somehow knew afterwards? How? I doubt that he would remember where he'd left anything in his bathroom... My opinion is that the guy simply jumped on the wagon trying to squeeze a settlement out of Armostrong.

House said:
Sure sign of a troll: When asked to actually post a link to the story he keeps mentioning he doesn't do it, comes up with a bunch of BS instead. Everyone is laughing as your pathetic attempts to make everyone hate cycling.
Now, House, I could see someone accusing Flyer of trying to make everyone hate Armstrong but he is definitely not trying to make everyone hate cycling... Unless for you Armostrong is cycling.
 
DV1976:

Yes, yes of course no 'proof' just lots of smoke. But you now have three people (Greg Lemond, Stephen Swartz & Emily O'Reily) who say LA deals in dope.

And we are not in court--only a Road Racing Post where folks who are passionate about cycling presumabley want the straight skinny, not silly commercial themes.

Lemond implied that LA said re: EPO use; "Everybody does it.' This implies LA personally.

Mike Anderson claims that these words were also used in a 2004 conversation with him re: recent doping busts; again with respect to doping; LA said; 'everyone does it'

Sounds like something I would say?


btw: Anderson claims to have found a box (not vials)
Vials would have been in the refrigerator---no mention of LA produce drawer---yet!

LA better hope Anderson did not photograph some of his medical kit.

Johan Museeuw kept his stuff at his veterinarian neighbor's----no possession charges for the old Lion King. Sadly, they did raid his neighbors house.

Now he has a 4-year ban.


DV1976 said:
Flyer... Roadhog is right in my opinion. You can't use Anderson's statements as proof. Especially since he said that he put the vial back but Armstrong somehow knew afterwards? How? I doubt that he would remember where he'd left anything in his bathroom... My opinion is that the guy simply jumped on the wagon trying to squeeze a settlement out of Armostrong.

Now, House, I could see someone accusing Flyer of trying to make everyone hate Armstrong but he is definitely not trying to make everyone hate cycling... Unless for you Armostrong is cycling.
 
House said:
Sure sign of a troll: When asked to actually post a link to the story he keeps mentioning he doesn't do it, comes up with a bunch of BS instead. Everyone is laughing as your pathetic attempts to make everyone hate cycling.
Go back and re-read limerickmans earlier post from LeMonde News re: the Lemond/LA cellular phone convesation.

I have reposted it yet again for you. Just more jealous lies which may be 100% accurate.

It is at the Indurain's Doctor says TDF is too hard.

Yet another jealous liar (cowardly little man). This sport is full of em. They are sooooo successful.
 
Gosh, flyer refusing to post a link to the story...again. What a surprise.
 
roadhog said:
Flyer,
I am no obnoxious Lance fan (although I thoroughly enjoy watching him race), and don't have any firm stance on either side of the overall doping issue, but will you at least admit that there is little to no credibility involved in this latest allegation? Given the facts of THIS case (don't try to drag other issues into it) as we know them, can any intelligent person NOT see the lack of credibility here on the part of the accuser?

Feel free to rant on about all the things you are passionate about, but to include this latest case as more "evidence" only seems to weaken your argument, in my mind.

Am I to believe that I am "insulting Mike Anderson's intelligence" by being suspicious of him given the facts that we know? Please, that statement by him greatly insults MY intelligence...

I would suggest you read very carefully Anderson's (the defendant) response to Armstrong (the plaintiff) - all 37 pages.

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/sports/040105_lance.pdf

The action was initiated by Armstrong after Anderson preferred to avoid litigation by Armstrong fulfilling the precontract representation to employ Anderson. Armstrong has jumped in and brought it out in the open but on the expectation that impoverished Anderson could not fund a legal suit.

In my opinion, it has backfired on Armstrong and may be contributive to his upcoming public announcement before the Tour of Georgia. Anderson's lawyers have requested that the case go to a jury trial where the facts will be subject to examination and cross examination. The drug issue is only pertinent as it relates to the timing of Armstrong's change of behaviour towards Anderson and is relevant to the defence.
 
VeloFlash said:
I would suggest you read very carefully Anderson's (the defendant) response to Armstrong (the plaintiff) - all 37 pages.

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/sports/040105_lance.pdf

The action was initiated by Armstrong after Anderson preferred to avoid litigation by Armstrong fulfilling the precontract representation to employ Anderson. Armstrong has jumped in and brought it out in the open but on the expectation that impoverished Anderson could not fund a legal suit.

In my opinion, it has backfired on Armstrong and may be contributive to his upcoming public announcement before the Tour of Georgia. Anderson's lawyers have requested that the case go to a jury trial where the facts will be subject to examination and cross examination. The drug issue is only pertinent as it relates to the timing of Armstrong's change of behaviour towards Anderson and is relevant to the defence.
believe me, I don't care enough (nor have the time) to carefully read 37 pages of legal ease. I don't know if LA is doping or not, and don't spend much time thinking about it either. Nothing I can control either way. I ride my bike because I enjoy it and like endurance fitness. I am quite certain my amateur friends and club members with whom I ride are not doping, so I am happy.

My simple point is this: these two guys are in a bitter fight over money, essentially. And loe and behold now one of the two guys whips out other allegations as well. It's classic school ground argument tactics, and as such should be suspect.
 
Hey bro,
So far, this post is all "hear say." Lemond said this, Anderson said that. So, as you stated above, where is the actual proof? Don't get me wrong, I think, just like you, that doping in cycling is running crazy right now. BUT- why do you try so hard to prove Lance as a dope user? For some of us, he is a role model and until he admits it or gets caught, he will continue to be. So far, he is one of very few good things in the sport that has kept it from going down hill. Like him or not, he is innocent until proven guilty. Have you seen him use dope? Has anyone you know and trust seen him use dope? I heard that he is a pritty good guy. Why don't you take this for fact and start a thread on it? :D :D :D :D :D
 
roadhog said:
believe me, I don't care enough (nor have the time) to carefully read 37 pages of legal ease. I don't know if LA is doping or not, and don't spend much time thinking about it either. Nothing I can control either way. I ride my bike because I enjoy it and like endurance fitness. I am quite certain my amateur friends and club members with whom I ride are not doping, so I am happy.

My simple point is this: these two guys are in a bitter fight over money, essentially. And loe and behold now one of the two guys whips out other allegations as well. It's classic school ground argument tactics, and as such should be suspect.

You read the OP's reference and obviously went off half cocked to the article's title ("Former assistant alleges he found banned substance in Armstrong's apartment") and the opening statement in the Sports Illustrated article:

A former personal assistant to Lance Armstrong filed court papers Thursday alleging that he discovered a banned substance in the six-time Tour de France winner's apartment early last year.

These papers were filed in defence and as part of a cross claim to the action commenced by Armstrong.

Tucked away in the last 5 paragraphs of the article it is clear the action was initiated by Armstrong and Anderson is not the "incredible accuser" as you have maintained. The filing by Anderson was at the request of the Court and is a chronology of the events giving rise to the litigation and the basis of Anderson's defence and cross claim.

The presentation of the article by Sports Illustrated was biased to sow the seeds of rage in readers such as yourself.
 
VeloFlash said:
You read the OP's reference and obviously went off half cocked to the article's title ("Former assistant alleges he found banned substance in Armstrong's apartment") and the opening statement in the Sports Illustrated article:

A former personal assistant to Lance Armstrong filed court papers Thursday alleging that he discovered a banned substance in the six-time Tour de France winner's apartment early last year.

These papers were filed in defence and as part of a cross claim to the action commenced by Armstrong.

Tucked away in the last 5 paragraphs of the article it is clear the action was initiated by Armstrong and Anderson is not the "incredible accuser" as you have maintained. The filing by Anderson was at the request of the Court and is a chronology of the events giving rise to the litigation and the basis of Anderson's defence and cross claim.

The presentation of the article by Sports Illustrated was biased to sow the seeds of rage in readers such as yourself.
okay, you win. Mike Anderson is completely believable and those evil writers at SI duped me. Will that keep me from having to sift through all the evidence? ;) Thank you. Nice avatar by the way...

Not trying to make light of it or argue with you. If there is more to it then so be it. Of course my comments pertained to the facts as the common dude knows them (which are still valid I think), which does not include the 37 page thingy.
 
Hello to the hood:

If I understand your position---you will consider LA a 'role model' until proven guilty---somehow. If you think testimony from former Champions and ex-teammates and employees in not proof---not sure a 'tearful confession' will qualify either.

Doping offences never go to trial so you are safe to assume no conviction for LA insofar as doping goes. Of cours LA's doctor has already been convicted and that does not seem to trouble you.

Does your position embrace Michael Jackson, the King of Pop as well? He has not been found guilty in a court---just paid out some large settlement coin to jealous liar(s). And on more than one case too.

Maybe Michael Jackson is Peter Pan---and your children would be safe on a sleep over with him?

My point is, if you depend on a inapplicable legal process to adjudicate and/or validate whom your role model is, you may be easily duped.

Again, doping is rampant in pro sport--all pro sport. Even Olympic Badmitten & race walking too.

So if you think that doping is OK---or if the TDF Champion should be EXEMPT from doping or doping testing---you have nothing to worry about.

If you are against doping---and the institutional fraud and lie that allows doping to continue---you ought to be very worried.


snyper0311 said:
Hey bro,
So far, this post is all "hear say." Lemond said this, Anderson said that. So, as you stated above, where is the actual proof? Don't get me wrong, I think, just like you, that doping in cycling is running crazy right now. BUT- why do you try so hard to prove Lance as a dope user? For some of us, he is a role model and until he admits it or gets caught, he will continue to be. So far, he is one of very few good things in the sport that has kept it from going down hill. Like him or not, he is innocent until proven guilty. Have you seen him use dope? Has anyone you know and trust seen him use dope? I heard that he is a pritty good guy. Why don't you take this for fact and start a thread on it? :D :D :D :D :D
 
Well, first off, it's not the hood, it's the barrio! Second, Michael J and Lance have nothing in common-at all. So, for you to use the analigy of Michael and Lance is so far off base, I can actually see how House would call you out on your posts. To some, MJ is probobly a role model and yes, they still follow him. As far as my kids are concerned, I don't think Lance would shoot up my 2 year old son with 'roids. So, in short, hell ya, he's one of my role model. If YOUR truth comes out, you can give me the "I told you so." Until then, your view is yours. I still haven't seen your "Good guy thread!" I said it, so it must be true!
 

Similar threads

G
Replies
2
Views
282
R