collapse


L'arri

  • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
  • Monument Winner
  • *
  • Country: be
  • Posts: 7493
  • Liked: 5652
  • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
    • Dopeology.org
  • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
« Reply #750 on: August 28, 2012, 11:42 »
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-armstrongs-illusion-of-control-is-paramount

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2012/08/27/christophe-bassons-en-hiver-je-distancais-richard-virenque-dans-les-cotes_1751911_3242.html

The interview in Le Monde goes like this (errors my own):

Quote

Christophe Bassons : "In winter, I used to drop Richard Virenque on the climbs"



Were you surprised by the Armstrong decision?

I wasn't surprised. He had to choose the best solution given the difficult circumstances in which he found himself. Knowing the person he is, he would really have to have his hands tied to give up the fight and choose some form of abandon. But even then, he maintains the fierce desire to control things: "I've had enough, I'm stopping this." The illusion of control is primordial. Armstrong, thanks to his money and political connections, can afford to behave like that. He lives for nothing more than putting himself above us mere mortals. I'm more sad for him than anything else. This need to feel superior, to crush all competition is certainly rooted in his past.

Without any particular suggestion of doping, just the American's announcement was enough to trigger a media scramble. How do you see the press' role in this?

It's right on time, since I'm organising a debate in November on the role of the media in doping activities. Until now, nobody has given any additional proof of Armstrong's doping. The media reversal depends on this simple decision of his. Journalists are the prisoners of judicial proceedings. Even if some of them wanted to talk about it, they can't get started with anything other than the facts we have so far. Sometimes that's a responsible attitude to have, but all these journalists and these former riders who have jumped on the bandwagon since Friday, all of them already knew about these sorts of doping methods. I think we're far from what the media's role ought to be in the prevention of doping. When we value winners and gold medals above all, how can we be surprised if a sportsperson finds no shame in cheating?

How do you take the return of suspended riders like Valverde or Contador?

It isn't right that a sportsperson suspended two years for doping comes back full of pride for winning races. Why don't they own up? Why aren't they ashamed at having cheated?

In 1999, you were under enormous pressure, notably from Armstrong, to decide to quit the Tour. Can you recall for us this painful episode in your career?

I was riding my first Tour de France in the colours of FDJ. The year before, my previous team Festina had been thrown out of the race due to the scandal we all know about. Up to then, I had never been in line for selection, given my refusal to dope. I was writing a column for Le Parisien in which I would describe my first Tour. I was already known by then as the peloton's "Mr Clean". Very quickly, I realised that we were going a lot faster. Guys would do 200 kilometres without letting up, they were in better shape after eight or nine days' racing than at the start. This is why I say that, not only can you not win the Tour without doping, you can't even really put the hammer down on everyone during a stage. Very quickly, I was sidelined by my DS, Marc Madiot, my teammates. Then Armstrong won a really hard stage to Sestrières. The next day, the peloton decrees that we ride steadily for 100km before disputing the victory in the last 80km to Alpe d'Huez. Being blacklisted, I didn't know any of this, and I ended up hearing about it from a mechanic in my team. So I decided as a provocation to attack from the gun. Lance Armstrong got his team to ride and my own team helped him. I was caught quickly and the American grabbed me by the shoulder, told me I had no place here and finished with the famous "flip you". I just smiled. Two days later, I abandoned the race, worn out by the pressure I'd put up with for the last two weeks. Then I put up with six months of depression.

At the time, your DS, Marc Madiot, blamed you for your views

Today, the FDJ is in a better place with regard to doping. Young guys now have the opportunity to finish their education, which makes them more balanced and shows them there's more out there than just sport. On the '99 Tour, he yelled at me and told me to shut up. But he and Lance Armstrong were the only ones who openly let me know what they thought of me. I credit them at least for their honesty. Madiot is old school. Perhaps he has changed. Anyway, he's fortunate enough to have a really decent sponsor.

Peut-on parler d'un comportement mafieux de la part d'Armstrong et du peloton ?

Can we say Armstrong's and the peloton's behavior was like that of a mafia?

He has always sought to position himself as the patron. But I think he didn't have the same authority as someone like Bernard Hinault in his day. Lots of French riders thought and still think like me. However, they think about their careers and they know well enough how easy it is to get dropped from the sport. If you break the vow of silence, you can count on never winning another race.

What do you say to those who defend Armstrong by saying that all riders are doped and therefore he was still a great champion who was better than the rest?

I speak from personal experience. At Festina in winter, I used to drop Virenque on the hills, I tested better than Zülle (world time-trial champion, twice runner up in the Tour). Then, as soon as the programme got underway, I slipped down the hierarchy of the team. You can't hide from that: a rider on EPO gives himself the advantage of a turbo. I think that, between a clean guy who finishes in the top 80 in Paris and the winner who shoots up, there's no difference. If you put them on an equal footing, the 80th guy could perhaps beat the yellow jersey. Anyway, a truly great champion is not the same as a sportsperson who dopes. To be that champion, you have to be completely solid, mentally, physically and socially.

You now work in doping prevention. You speak out against the presence of doctors in the heart of teams

The team doctor is there for performance, not for medical care. The issue of doping includes everything that's forbidden in terms of doping activity. Without going into extreme, Doctor Mabuse examples, all the means of recovery that are available are used by these doctors to optimise performance. In fact, that's the doping practice. If tomorrow they legalised EPO, I'm certain all the peloton would be using it. What annoys me about this "recovery management" is the fact that proper fatigue is of reduced importance. Riding a 21-day race is not so very tough if you don't let yourself get too worn down. In six years as a pro, I never had cause to visit a team doctor. I had my general practitioner and the race doctor if necessary.

Can you tell us about your work with the AFLD?

I'm the local anti-doping representative in the Aquitaine region. I make myself available to conduct doping controls as required. I'm also a member of the regional commission on trafficking of doping products.

What experience do you get from these activities?

The big worry right now is over dietary supplements. In the rugby schools and in other sports, these supplements are becoming part of the training regime. And if you're using them, the day when they no longer provide any benefit, you might try something else. At the end of the year, I also think that the use of corticosteroids will be really bad. The law has altered and now they're almost legal. Cyclists use them a heck of a lot.

Why do people dope in your opinion?

I don't think we take enough notice of the psychological aspect of doping. We hear often that it's nothing more than a question of money in sport. So how does that explain the fact that the sport in which doping is most pervasive is weightlifting? The majority of them don't do it for money, but for love and acceptance. On the issue of drug addiction, we have known for a long time that talking up the health dangers is not the best way to approach the matter. A doped rider who wins races feels better in his head, he gets social recognition and I can't even be sure that he is putting his health in danger. We dope for our mental wellbeing, whether that's motivated by a lack of money, a need for personal recognition or a desire for social recognition.

So does that make Armstrong a disastrous example?

What example does this affair set? A rider who dopes can beat the tests and only gets caught, if he ever does, fourteen years after the fact. And the worst thing of all, he's still as sure of himself, still has no shame at having cheated. There's a real education problem and the role of the media, I insist, is essential in this. That's where we need to do some work.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 11:53 by L'arriviste »
    Cycling is a Europe thing only and I only watch from Omloop on cause I am cool and sh*t
    RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #751 on: August 28, 2012, 11:46 »
    Quote
    In 1999, you were under enormous pressure, notably from Armstrong, to decide to quit the Tour. Can you recall for us this painful episode in your career?

    I was riding my first Tour de France in the colours of FDJ. The year before, my previous team Festina had been thrown out of the race due to the scandal we all know about. Up to then, I had never been in line for selection, given my refusal to dope. I was writing a column for Le Parisien in which I would describe my first Tour. I was already known by then as the peloton's "Mr Clean". Very quickly, I realised that we were going a lot faster. Guys would do 200 kilometres without letting up, they were in better shape after eight or nine days' racing than at the start. This is why I say that, not only can you not win the Tour without doping, you can't even really put the hammer down on everyone during a stage. Very quickly, I was sidelined by my DS, Marc Madiot, my teammates. Then Armstrong won a really hard stage to Sestrières. The next day, the peloton decrees that we ride steadily for 100km before disputing the victory in the last 80km to Alpe d'Huez. Being blacklisted, I didn't know any of this, and I ended up hearing about it from a mechanic in my team. So I decided as a provocation to attack from the gun. Lance Armstrong got his team to ride and my own team helped him. I was caught quickly and the American grabbed me by the shoulder, told me I had no place here and finished with the famous "flip you". I just smiled. Two days later, I abandoned the race, worn out by the pressure I'd put up with for the last two weeks. Then I put up with six months of depression.

    wow
  • ReplyReply
  • Of course, if this turns out someday to be the industry standard integrated handlebar-computer-braking solution then I'll eat my kevlar-reinforced aerodynamic hat.

    Larri Nov 12, 2014

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #752 on: August 28, 2012, 11:57 »
    went to look for the stage , found it but not the event

    anyways here is stage 10 with P & P

    with a few minutes of OZ blah as well
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #754 on: August 28, 2012, 12:25 »
    a velocast podcast - the history

    http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/race-radio/2012/8/27/lance-armstrong-special-edition.html

    Never put 1 point together that when Armstrong was tested BC the blood profiles should have shown the results of the Cancer and he should have been diagnosed much much earlier.

    In fact this has happened before re blood profiles and cancer being diagnosed especially with testicular cancer
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 7493
    • Liked: 5652
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #755 on: August 28, 2012, 13:44 »
    http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/artikkel.php?artid=10068100

    Anders Christiansen interviews Thor Hushovd in VG Nett:

    Quote
    Do you believe that Armstrong cheated?
    I cannot comment on that.

    Are you afraid to say what you think about Armstrong?
    I will not answer. I often don't comment on things.
  • ReplyReply

  • Jamsque

    • Road Captain
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 2324
    • Liked: 853
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #756 on: August 28, 2012, 16:11 »
    I was off the grid from last Wednesday so I missed this whole thing blowing up. I've caught up on all the salient points but I have one remaining query:

    What, if anything, have Phil and Paul said about this? Wasn't Phil quoted as saying that he would have to retire if Lance turned out to be dirty?
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #757 on: August 28, 2012, 16:29 »
    I was off the grid from last Wednesday so I missed this whole thing blowing up. I've caught up on all the salient points but I have one remaining query:

    What, if anything, have Phil and Paul said about this? Wasn't Phil quoted as saying that he would have to retire if Lance turned out to be dirty?

    he made a comment about Armstrong riding with a group and that saying he is still ´winning ´bike races or something but that is all as far as I know of.
  • ReplyReply

  • benotti69

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1697
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #758 on: August 28, 2012, 21:55 »
    i am going to attempt to summarize the all-important question asked above:

    - what is the legal basis for usada stripping Armstrong of his 7 tour de france titles.

    before i proceed, i must note that i don’t have any legal training nor experience. however, i do love digging when i struggle with some questions.

    the short answer was provided - wada code allows extending the 8-year statute of limitations in cases involving a cover-up. and since USADA determined that Armstrong fraudulently concealed his doping dating to the 1990s, he received the maximum hammer  :police:

    i think it was justified and many of us hoped this should have happened earlier, but if stated with full honestly, the severe usada sanction is not conclusive yet. moreover, it is likely to be exposed to a vigorous legal challenge. that’s where a longer answer to the question needs to be examined.

    Many sources referred to hellebuyck's case as the validated precedent allowing usada to extend the statute of limitations. indeed it was the precedent but the parallel is not a perfect one. mainly because hellebuyck perjured himself under oath and then admitted his earlier doping offense. this allowed usada to add-up his sanctions and argue for tolling sol. this Not the case with armstrong who continues to deny and never faced an anti-doping panel. Another difference is the non-analytical nature of Armstrong’s evidence vs. a failed test/admission in hellebuyck’s case.

    Here is the AAA ruling.
    http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

    Indeed it is a very interesting document. Not everything went smoothly for usada at the hearing. in fact, usada was sharply criticized by the panel on several accounts including…their charging letter.  the panel had to delve into various conflicting statues and the applicability of IAAF's 6-year sol.  the panel explicitly noted that if hellebuyck exercised his right NOT to testify, he would not perjure himself…guess what, Armstrong declined to testify. the panel expressed its opinion wrt extending the sol on page 28. it basically amounts to the fact that a false testimony is a fraudulent concealment and under the us law allows tolling the sol.. again, if armstrong perjured himself, it was a different hearing (SCA), and it would very interesting it it's applicable here.

    overall, I think the uci will have their hands full if they try to appeal to cas exploiting the controversial sol issues from the hellebuyck’s case. they may even succeed in overturning usada’s verdict but while doing so they WILL HAVE TO EXPOSE their own role in the key issue of armstrong’s case - fraudulent concealment.

    that’s why i don’t believe the uci would want shooting itself in the foot.  either way it is a double bad news for armstrong. he will not be able to keep the evidence from seeing the day of light and he is almost guaranteed to be an officially sanctioned doper and  a cheat.

    Stephen Swart rode with Armstrong on Motorola and talked about doping. I wonder did USADA talk to him. David Walsh interviewed him for one of his books.
  • ReplyReply
  • "ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78


    Lanced Armprong

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: england
    • Posts: 53
    • Liked: 7

    Jamsque

    • Road Captain
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 2324
    • Liked: 853
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #761 on: August 29, 2012, 10:06 »
    Oh man, the comments section on there is funny as hell! It's like YouTube :-)

    'Lance got the complexion for the protection'

    Dude has a point, you know. The USA has never particularly frowned on those who cheat in sports unless they are a) black or b) cheat to lose.
  • ReplyReply

  • benotti69

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1697
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #762 on: August 29, 2012, 11:10 »
    'Lance got the complexion for the protection'

    Dude has a point, you know. The USA has never particularly frowned on those who cheat in sports unless they are a) black or b) cheat to lose.

    I guess if Armstrong had a darker complection he may have not survived so long. But then again Carl Lewis is not seen as a cheater and he did cheat.

    Also Mary Decker did get busted and busted big time.

    But he will fade and most people will remember Armstrong as the guy who doped.
  • ReplyReply

  • Jamsque

    • Road Captain
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 2324
    • Liked: 853
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #763 on: August 29, 2012, 11:33 »
    I guess if Armstrong had a darker complection he may have not survived so long. But then again Carl Lewis is not seen as a cheater and he did cheat.

    Also Mary Decker did get busted and busted big time.

    But he will fade and most people will remember Armstrong as the guy who doped.

    I don't think so. Talking to my US friends, and looking at American websites, the general tone of the public seems to be firmly pro-Lance. If pressed most will admit that he probably did cheat, but they don't care. Armstrong is going to continue to be a cancer-beating hero to the majority of Americans for the rest of his life, and most will still probably think he is the greatest cyclist of all time too.
  • ReplyReply

  • benotti69

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1697
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #764 on: August 29, 2012, 11:47 »
    I don't think so. Talking to my US friends, and looking at American websites, the general tone of the public seems to be firmly pro-Lance. If pressed most will admit that he probably did cheat, but they don't care. Armstrong is going to continue to be a cancer-beating hero to the majority of Americans for the rest of his life, and most will still probably think he is the greatest cyclist of all time too.

    Dont agree Jam. It is still early days. Armstrong with his personality and character will drag himself down. Remember half the people of Austin Texas think Armstrong is a jerk, the other half have not met him yet. When the full facts of what this guy has done comes out in book form and the journo gets on big talk shows it will start to sink in that the yellow wool was pulled over everyones eyes.

    If he is true to his word about quitting staying with him for a long long time ten his quitting agaisnt USADA will be eating him and he will be wanting to strike out.

    He is a sore loser. Do remember him shouldering the guy out of the way from his bike after a stage of the TdF and then turning to the guy to say with a  look of 'yeah? Want a fight'.

    Nope I see him on the slippery slope and he is his own worst enemy.
  • ReplyReply

  • python

    • Domestic Rider
    • Posts: 60
    • Liked: 17
    • still to be born
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #765 on: August 29, 2012, 13:51 »
    Stephen Swart rode with Armstrong on Motorola and talked about doping. I wonder did USADA talk to him. David Walsh interviewed him for one of his books.
    itwould be hard for me imagining that stephen was not contacted...that said, his evidenciary value  is limited because apparently usada did not charge armstrong  with early 90s doping, rather starting in 1998.
  • ReplyReply

  • flicker2.0

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 351
    • Liked: 21
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #766 on: August 29, 2012, 17:02 »
    Good attempt at summarising some meaty legal doctrines there Python - but just a little off beam.

    The extension of the SOL wasn't made under the WADA code, but under a general principle of tolling - which basically means moving when the clock starts ticking from.

    The ability to toll the SOL is based in turn on a principle that the law (ie., judges - which includes arbitrators) wont allow itself to be used to create unjust ends. The principle basically seeks to beat those people who try to dishonestly play the letter of the law to beat its intent.

    It has its roots in the principles of equity - which is that branch of law that was very much concerned with general fairness and good conduct (eg., the concept of "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" or remedies such as ordering specific performance of obligations). (I say "was" because the line between equity and the other branches of law has become somewhat blurry over the centuries ...)

    In both Hellebuyck and here, the SOL was tolled because of actions by (or alleged to be by) the defendant to disquise their wrongdoing that were of such a level that the USADA (as plaintif in each case) couldn't reasonably have been expected to have known what was going on any earlier than they did.

    The important points to note there are that the defendant's actions were pretty significant and went beyond "normal dishonesty" (my term). The USADA also had to have taken all reasonable steps that you'd expect of a national anti-doping agency and still not been able to have found out what was going on. The two requirements have to be met - otherwise the normal SOL runs.

    Here the argument is of course related to the network of deceit and the conspiracy to defraud the sport.

    Hellebuyck is good precedent for the current case. The specific facts may be different - ie., perjury vs conspiracy - but the underlying legal principles are the same.

    The discussion at section 8 of the arbitration decision (thanks for finding that Python - makes interesting reading) is a good summary of the principles and basis for tolling for anyone who is interested.

    Oh, and Python - I agree wholeheartedly on your point about the UCI being in a tricky position if it was to appeal to CAS. I think that it's pretty clear that USADA (no doubt with WADA's support and backing) has a heap of evidence against the UCI - as well as possibly ASO and some of the major sponsors (who aren't subject to USADA jurisdiction, but would take a massive PR hit and may open themselves to various civil and criminal proceedings). Here's hopin that it finds its way to the light of day ...


    Most Americans do not have the time to go into the in depth analysis of Armstrongs' doings.
    Americans see sports as entertainment, and results. What makes Armstrong special is to win the tour after cancer......and 7 times, being an American, and with his persona, which most Americans like. Comparing him with the other American Tour winners, LeMond, nice guy, fantastic athlete, and Landis, a great rider also, but a bit clownish, Amstrongs persona wins out. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the leader of a cancer organization, running u23,jr development racing, active in tri, attracting adulation still.

    Of course the most important thing about Armstrong is the millions of hours, people like us spend, tweeting and blogging about him, man, talk about man-love, Tom Cruise and Lennie Kravitz, have got to be jealous of Lance.
  • ReplyReply

  • benotti69

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1697
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #767 on: August 29, 2012, 17:07 »
    itwould be hard for me imagining that stephen was not contacted...that said, his evidenciary value  is limited because apparently usada did not charge armstrong  with early 90s doping, rather starting in 1998.

    I guess it would've helped in ways as i am sure there were names given that helped join dots.

    Stephen Swart was criticised for his doping by the NZ press. Pity Hayden Roulston didn't read some of it before declaring his idolisation of Armstrong.

    Be nice if some journo in NZ dug up the original articles that point to doping by Armstrong way way back pre cancer.
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #768 on: August 29, 2012, 18:22 »
    he made a comment about Armstrong riding with a group and that saying he is still ´winning ´bike races or something but that is all as far as I know of.

    There was some article about Liggets reaction and he said that the past was dirty but the sport is getting cleaner. lol

    Here we go
    http://www.timescall.com/ci_21397522/pro-challenge-riders-avoid-armstrong-saga

    Quote
    "This was all a long time ago, and the sport is ready to go forward and has worked very hard to clean up its act."

    Ligget has spent the last 13 years arguing that the Lance era was clean. And now overnight he joins the likes of Mcquaid in saying - oh yeah that was dirty, but this era is clean trust us.

    Umm sorry, if Ligget is leading that camp now, i aint buying it.
  • ReplyReply
  • Despite the self-serving data benders and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers, even within 'new age' cycling teams. Personally, I don't accept that the 'dark era' has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.

    Icebreaker

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: ca
    • Posts: 332
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #769 on: August 29, 2012, 21:46 »
    I leave the computer for ONE DAY, and look what happens!  ;D

    One day!?

    I went on vacation with my family for a week ...
  • ReplyReply

  • Icebreaker

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: ca
    • Posts: 332
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #770 on: August 30, 2012, 00:25 »
    Hi everyone.
    Just want to thank you for keeping the discussion going. I have every reason to believe that what has happened behind the scenes in places like this have had an effect on the outcome of the long LA saga.
    There are a lot of people of sound mind on this forum which I have found very re-assuring. It restores my faith in the human race. I only wish that I'd felt the same assurance way back when I was buried beneath the weight of legal battle.

    All the best,
    Mike Anderson

    P.S. I told you so!

    I was away when the news came out last week, doing a GranFondo in Banff National Park.  The ride was on Saturday, the day after the news.  It was shocking to me to hear the comments in the start corrals from people - 100% along the lines of who cares if Lance doped, everyone doped, etc.

    No understanding of the broader issues, no sense of care about what the story is and what it means.

    Sad.
  • ReplyReply

  • ocrltd

    • Coach Potato
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 2
    • Liked: 0
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #771 on: August 30, 2012, 01:57 »
    I don't know if this has already been posted,but if not it's amazing interview given by Phil Liggert.

    http://www.ballz.co.za/sport/ballz-speak-to-phil-liggett-about-lance-armstrong-being-stripped-of-ti/649
  • ReplyReply

  • Icebreaker

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: ca
    • Posts: 332
    • Liked: 215
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #772 on: August 30, 2012, 02:31 »
    I don't know if this has already been posted,but if not it's amazing interview given by Phil Liggert.

    http://www.ballz.co.za/sport/ballz-speak-to-phil-liggett-about-lance-armstrong-being-stripped-of-ti/649

    Never tested positive
    Over 500 tests
    Everyone else was found guilty, Lance never was
    Brought people into the sport, isn't that all that matters

    Familiar sounding talking points

    Etc
    Etc
    Etc

    I hope whatever cheques Liggett is cashing are big ones, otherwise you would think he would have trouble sleeping at night ....

    The whopper though "USADA are a nefarious local drugs agency" - wonder what his thoughts on WADA are?

    Don't think I'll ever watch Liggett again.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 02:52 by Icebreaker »

    L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 7493
    • Liked: 5652
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #773 on: August 30, 2012, 06:54 »
    "Nefarious local drugs agency"?

    A loaded phrase indeed:

    Nefarious - few people will know what this means but it sounds bad, right?

    Local - as in smalltown deputy dawgs, not megaglobal superheroes like Lance

    Drugs - are bad, m'kay

    Agency - as in 'the Man' and, uh, like Washington.
  • ReplyReply

  • flicker2.0

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 351
    • Liked: 21
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #774 on: August 30, 2012, 07:19 »
    I was away when the news came out last week, doing a GranFondo in Banff National Park.  The ride was on Saturday, the day after the news.  It was shocking to me to hear the comments in the start corrals from people - 100% along the lines of who cares if Lance doped, everyone doped, etc.

    No understanding of the broader issues, no sense of care about what the story is and what it means.

    Sad.

    Hey, the Americans and Canadians maybe watched cycling before 1999.

    I looked this one up meself. Study forinstance Voeckler, the Festina team, the death of Marc De Maar, the history of Freddy Maertens, Flandria Shimano, Johan muuesew, etc. Thevenet, suicide of Luis Ocana, cocaine overdose of Marco Pantani(RIP) mysterious death of Frank Vanerbrouke, and my God I never even had time to read, lance to landis, voet, dog in hat, nor will I read chimeras new book.

    Read this though, a good read:


    If the French can resurrect some of Richard Virenques' connections,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque

    and sway ManioloSaiz from Contador, they could come up with a tour winner.
    Thevenet, and Voklers' team Europcar also have some happening roids connections.


    Like I said, some of us watched cycling prior to 1999.

  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 7493
    • Liked: 5652
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #775 on: August 30, 2012, 08:42 »
    ... the death of Marc De Maar ...

    That's funny, I could have sworn I saw him racing in Lisbon last Sunday afternoon.  ;)

  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    flicker2.0

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 351
    • Liked: 21
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #777 on: August 30, 2012, 16:15 »
    That's funny, I could have sworn I saw him racing in Lisbon last Sunday afternoon.  ;)



    Sorry, this guy, one of the three muskateers, Marc DeMeyer had a heart attack, while using massive amounts of Steroids. I think Freddy Maertens won 8 stages of the Vuelta and all 3 jeseys, while riding with Shimano Flandria, maybe in the same year, wow, what a dominant team.

    http://www.cyclingarchives.com/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=8711
    Pre EPO.
    http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/9/24/1707769/freddy-maertens-take-two

    Another guy Dick Pound and Tygart should sanction.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31252
    • Liked: 10833
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    flicker2.0

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 351
    • Liked: 21
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #779 on: August 31, 2012, 03:11 »
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 11:53 by Martin318is, Reason: removed second topic »

     

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top