HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Sports > General Sports
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
General Sports Other sports without their own forum, and general sports talk

Lance Armstrong will admit to doping (1/11 report)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-25-2012, 08:28 PM
  #101
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,078
vCash: 500
Amusing article here where the author goes down the list of finishers at each TdF Armstrong won and tries to find the "winner" in the case that everyone who has been tied to doping is removed:

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...-1999-to-2005/

Some pretty hilarious results occur:

1999: Fernando Escartin (3rd place)
2000: Fernando Escartin (8th place)
2001: Andrei Kivilev (4th place)
2002: Carlos Sastre (10th place)
2003: Carlos Sastre (9th place)
2004: Georg Totschnig (7th place)
2005: Cadel Evans (8th place)

Average finish of the highest-placing "clean" (i.e. non-implicated) rider: 7th place

This does a good job of showing why awarding any stripped titles to other riders would be a total fool's errand. Doing it within a short time period after the race ended (such as in 2006 with Floyd Landis and Oscar Pierero) is one thing, but re-writing the results years afterwards is pointless.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 08:51 PM
  #102
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,795
vCash: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Amusing article here where the author goes down the list of finishers at each TdF Armstrong won and tries to find the "winner" in the case that everyone who has been tied to doping is removed:

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...-1999-to-2005/

Some pretty hilarious results occur:

1999: Fernando Escartin (3rd place)
2000: Fernando Escartin (8th place)
2001: Andrei Kivilev (4th place)
2002: Carlos Sastre (10th place)
2003: Carlos Sastre (9th place)
2004: Georg Totschnig (7th place)
2005: Cadel Evans (8th place)

Average finish of the highest-placing "clean" (i.e. non-implicated) rider: 7th place

This does a good job of showing why awarding any stripped titles to other riders would be a total fool's errand. Doing it within a short time period after the race ended (such as in 2006 with Floyd Landis and Oscar Pierero) is one thing, but re-writing the results years afterwards is pointless.
Whatever, aren't all Pen state's wins being stripped thnks to the Sandusky fiasco?

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 09:45 PM
  #103
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Average finish of the highest-placing "clean" (i.e. non-implicated) rider: 7th place

This does a good job of showing why awarding any stripped titles to other riders would be a total fool's errand. Doing it within a short time period after the race ended (such as in 2006 with Floyd Landis and Oscar Pierero) is one thing, but re-writing the results years afterwards is pointless.
Rather ugly, maybe it would be better to say there was no winner of those races.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 10:15 PM
  #104
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
OK, I'm late to the party. But I will offer up some thoughts anyway...

For those of you complaining there is no evidence you obviously do not follow cycling. I suggest you familiarize yourself with journalists David Walsh and Paul Kimmage. Read up on Lance's former masseuse Emma O'Reilly and what she has publicly stated about the failed test in 1999. Some facts are very much out there.

This is a man who has fought tooth and nail to squelch any accusations against him by anybody. Now, when he has a chance to put it all to rest he's too tired to fight? Hardly. As bad as this current situation is for him it would have been far worse for the truth to be exposed as it would have in an arbitration case. But unfortunately for Lance he has only postponed the inevitable. Travis Tygart head of USADA has indicated that the facts will come out "at the right time".
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...#ixzz24R6Deq5I

Anybody who wants to think Lance is being railroaded is welcome to their opinion. But you're not welcome to ignore the facts just because they aren't posted on HF or in your local newspaper.

A lot more information will come out. The case is not over as there are others currently being adjudicated that overlap his. Most notably his former DS, Johan Bruyneel. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...ith-USADA.aspx The fireworks revolving around Mr Armstrong have only just begun.

As long as there are people who still think OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife and Ron Goldman I suppose there will be people who think LA is innocent too.

Eddie Shack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 12:48 AM
  #105
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Shack View Post
OK, I'm late to the party. But I will offer up some thoughts anyway...

For those of you complaining there is no evidence you obviously do not follow cycling. I suggest you familiarize yourself with journalists David Walsh and Paul Kimmage. Read up on Lance's former masseuse Emma O'Reilly and what she has publicly stated about the failed test in 1999. Some facts are very much out there.

This is a man who has fought tooth and nail to squelch any accusations against him by anybody. Now, when he has a chance to put it all to rest he's too tired to fight? Hardly. As bad as this current situation is for him it would have been far worse for the truth to be exposed as it would have in an arbitration case. But unfortunately for Lance he has only postponed the inevitable. Travis Tygart head of USADA has indicated that the facts will come out "at the right time".
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...#ixzz24R6Deq5I

Anybody who wants to think Lance is being railroaded is welcome to their opinion. But you're not welcome to ignore the facts just because they aren't posted on HF or in your local newspaper.

A lot more information will come out. The case is not over as there are others currently being adjudicated that overlap his. Most notably his former DS, Johan Bruyneel. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...ith-USADA.aspx The fireworks revolving around Mr Armstrong have only just begun.

As long as there are people who still think OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife and Ron Goldman I suppose there will be people who think LA is innocent too.
Thank you. I've been laughing at various articles in the "main stream media' that have treated this as though it's a stunning and unexpected turn of events. lol.

this isn't a stunning turn of events for cycling - it's armstrong's long in coming comeuppance.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:25 AM
  #106
CoolForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
Well cycling is one of the few pro sports that has actual, serious drug testing. Imagine what the NHL, KHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, etc. would be like if the instituted the same testing as pro cycling.
Ya... One of the more annoying aspects of this will be all the 'mainstream' NA media writing off the sport as nothing but a bunch of drug treats (which itself isn't necessarily an unfair opinion) while totally ignoring or not realizing the inadequate, at least when compared to cycling, drug testing/controls that the sports/leagues they usual cover currently have implemented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Thank you. I've been laughing at various articles in the "main stream media' that have treated this as though it's a stunning and unexpected turn of events. lol.

this isn't a stunning turn of events for cycling - it's armstrong's long in coming comeuppance.
This is the another annoying aspect... I think anyone who has even a passing interest in cycling (not just Armstrong, but cycling itself) new that eventually it would all end badly for Armstrong.

CoolForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 02:58 AM
  #107
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,110
vCash: 432
What is stunning is that LA has always been protected.

Here's more evidence of that :
Lawyer Thibault de Montbrial has declared in Journal du Dimanche (today) that US Postal was supposed to have a perquisition in 2005 in Pau.
Police came to the hotel and just before they knocked on the door, they received a phone call to cancel everything. Inspectors were mad and the lawyer doesn't know who called, but obviously, that sounds extremely fishy.

Evilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:18 AM
  #108
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Amusing article here where the author goes down the list of finishers at each TdF Armstrong won and tries to find the "winner" in the case that everyone who has been tied to doping is removed:

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...-1999-to-2005/

Some pretty hilarious results occur:

1999: Fernando Escartin (3rd place)
2000: Fernando Escartin (8th place)
2001: Andrei Kivilev (4th place)
2002: Carlos Sastre (10th place)
2003: Carlos Sastre (9th place)
2004: Georg Totschnig (7th place)
2005: Cadel Evans (8th place)

Average finish of the highest-placing "clean" (i.e. non-implicated) rider: 7th place

This does a good job of showing why awarding any stripped titles to other riders would be a total fool's errand. Doing it within a short time period after the race ended (such as in 2006 with Floyd Landis and Oscar Pierero) is one thing, but re-writing the results years afterwards is pointless.
Listing Escartin as "clean" is just hilarious, Kelme is one of the most obvious dirty teams in the history of the sport. Not to mention how questionable the others listed are.

Jevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 05:33 AM
  #109
Vasilevskiy
I've many surnames
 
Vasilevskiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Barcelona
Country: Spain
Posts: 8,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo View Post
What is stunning is that LA has always been protected.

Here's more evidence of that :
Lawyer Thibault de Montbrial has declared in Journal du Dimanche (today) that US Postal was supposed to have a perquisition in 2005 in Pau.
Police came to the hotel and just before they knocked on the door, they received a phone call to cancel everything. Inspectors were mad and the lawyer doesn't know who called, but obviously, that sounds extremely fishy.
Yeah, and I wouldn't be surprsied that this happened several times...

Vasilevskiy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 08:00 AM
  #110
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
Listing Escartin as "clean" is just hilarious, Kelme is one of the most obvious dirty teams in the history of the sport. Not to mention how questionable the others listed are.
Oh I agree, that was one of the most obvious examples where the research the writer did wasn't deep enough (but at the end of the day I can't really blame him, it was just a blog post). And maybe that's part of the point: a quick superficial analysis and we are already at domestiques like Escartin, Kivilev, and Totschnig "winning" the TdF without even getting into whether or not they were doped.

I suspect from about 1991 until 2005 (or even further) it was very, very rare for anyone in the top 5 to be clean, and probably most of the top 10.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:17 AM
  #111
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,078
vCash: 500
Another thing the media and many of Armstrong's defenders either don't mention or don't know about is the following:

Armstrong did not start racing well at the TdF after beating cancer, as is often portrayed in the media. Before he was diagnosed with cancer, he was a very promising young cyclist (albeit one that wasn't really viewed as a GC threat, at least early on) who broke into the TdF peloton in the early 1990s, at the height of the EPO era. To believe he was not using drugs such as EPO at this time, when almost all the riders were, and was still able to beat them for stage wins at the Tour, is really quite naive.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 12:50 PM
  #112
PlagerBros*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 572
vCash: 500
Eddie shack, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what evidence really is. Just because someone makes a claim does not immediately make it evidence. Think about it.

Evilo, I will repeat something I said before, I find it amusing how the anti-LA people will latch on to anything, rumor, hearsay, some blogger ruminating, etc. if it is against Armstrong, but will not believe anything that supports him. Not saying the info is false just pointing out some blatant hypocrisy on the part of you guys.

PlagerBros* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 12:55 PM
  #113
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Lance's early days of doping go all the way back to the Motorola team. When they were not competitive riding clean the team made a collective decision to start using EPO.

As to what to do with the vacated titles? The best thing they could do is declare no winner in those years.

Eddie Shack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:01 PM
  #114
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Shack View Post
Lance's early days of doping go all the way back to the Motorola team. When they were not competitive riding clean the team made a collective decision to start using EPO.

As to what to do with the vacated titles? The best thing they could do is declare no winner in those years.
I think the UCI/ASO should just leave them alone. Anyone who knows anything about the sport knows what went on during that era (and Indurain's that preceded it) and can judge it for themselves.

Rider gets caught doping during/immediately after a race? DQ them and strip them of any title won, passing it to the next rider, such as with Landis in 2006.

Rider gets "convicted" of doping years after the fact based on strong but circumstantial evidence? Leave the results as they are and accept that many people will simply judge them as illegitimate, it's too far in the past to start altering results and figuring out who was clean and who was not.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:15 PM
  #115
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
Eddie shack, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what evidence really is. Just because someone makes a claim does not immediately make it evidence. Think about it.

Evilo, I will repeat something I said before, I find it amusing how the anti-LA people will latch on to anything, rumor, hearsay, some blogger ruminating, etc. if it is against Armstrong, but will not believe anything that supports him. Not saying the info is false just pointing out some blatant hypocrisy on the part of you guys.
Patience grasshopper. You will soon be buried in evidence.

And just what is all the information supporting him? And please, stop with the 500 tests. You know that is a made up number don't you? It used to be 300 now it is 500? http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-armst...2#.UDpm6NWH8sc Tests are easy to beat, especially when you know when they are coming. And you know he was tipped off to many if not all of those tests. What are you going to say when George Hincappie's testimony is that they, including Lance did dope? George never failed a test either. At this point in time, you would be better served keeping a low profile than going on the attack.

Eddie Shack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:32 PM
  #116
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
I think the UCI/ASO should just leave them alone. Anyone who knows anything about the sport knows what went on during that era (and Indurain's that preceded it) and can judge it for themselves.

Rider gets caught doping during/immediately after a race? DQ them and strip them of any title won, passing it to the next rider, such as with Landis in 2006.

Rider gets "convicted" of doping years after the fact based on strong but circumstantial evidence? Leave the results as they are and accept that many people will simply judge them as illegitimate, it's too far in the past to start altering results and figuring out who was clean and who was not.
I don't really have a problem with that approach either. This many years after, there is no good solution. But you know Oscar Pirerro was a doper just as much as Floyd Landis was. His "win" is no more legitimate than Floyd's. That's the hypocrisy of awarding the win to someone else. But leaving the record book alone would not bother me. This was never about LA but rather about exposing the fraud.

What really needs to happen is for the UCI to be exposed for the fraud that they are. When their complicity in LA's fraud is made public we can only hope they are destroyed in their current state and the sport starts over with better leadership. The real cancer in pro cycling is the likes of Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen.

Eddie Shack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:39 PM
  #117
PlagerBros*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Shack View Post
Patience grasshopper. You will soon be buried in evidence.
Yet people like you continually say we already have evidence that completely proves Armstrong doped. So which is it, do we have it already or do we have a lot of hearsay, rumors, etc?

Quote:
And just what is all the information supporting him? And please, stop with the 500 tests. You know that is a made up number don't you? It used to be 300 now it is 500? http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-armst...2#.UDpm6NWH8sc Tests are easy to beat, especially when you know when they are coming. And you know he was tipped off to many if not all of those tests. What are you going to say when George Hincappie's testimony is that they, including Lance did dope? George never failed a test either. At this point in time, you would be better served keeping a low profile than going on the attack.
Perhaps you should keep a low profile instead of posting things that are false (i.e. claiming you have actual proof) and posting excrement like the bit here where you take a point being made and turn it into something it was not.

The sad part is that people like you are so emotionally invested in seeing Armstrong burn that you choose to give a free pass to the people that are the real issue. Who, allegedly was giving riders/teams warning? Who, allegedly hid doping positives? Who is claiming there tests are so good that they do not need to be tested for validity(yes that was actually proffered by WADA at one point) yet they, according to you, are easily beaten. If anything Armstrong is a product of an environment created by pro sport (yes other sports are as bad, if not worse, then cycling), WADA and the national ADA's, and the UCI. Unfortunately some people, you included prefer to see Armstrong as the Antichrist and the biggest thing wrong with cycling. It's a naive and unintelligent viewpoint.

PlagerBros* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:42 PM
  #118
KevFist
is best pony
 
KevFist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham, AL
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 5,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Another thing the media and many of Armstrong's defenders either don't mention or don't know about is the following:

Armstrong did not start racing well at the TdF after beating cancer, as is often portrayed in the media. Before he was diagnosed with cancer, he was a very promising young cyclist (albeit one that wasn't really viewed as a GC threat, at least early on) who broke into the TdF peloton in the early 1990s, at the height of the EPO era. To believe he was not using drugs such as EPO at this time, when almost all the riders were, and was still able to beat them for stage wins at the Tour, is really quite naive.
yeah, Lance was a promising young rider who was pretty much a time trial specialist. He'd won the Worlds, Fleche Wallone and Liege Bastogne Liege, but that's about it. He was a big boy. Cancer forced him to take some weight off his frame. Without cancer, Lance's career plays out much like George Hincapie without the sprinting ability.

There's no doubt in my mind that he was doping.

KevFist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:52 PM
  #119
PlagerBros*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFist View Post
yeah, Lance was a promising young rider who was pretty much a time trial specialist. He'd won the Worlds, Fleche Wallone and Liege Bastogne Liege, but that's about it. He was a big boy. Cancer forced him to take some weight off his frame. Without cancer, Lance's career plays out much like George Hincapie without the sprinting ability.

There's no doubt in my mind that he was doping.
He probably was doping but to call him a TT specialist is a bit much. He was a classics guy who could climb. He was too big for Alpine climbs but good enough for the Ardennes classics and the mountains in the Tour duPont/Trump.

PlagerBros* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:56 PM
  #120
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
Yet people like you continually say we already have evidence that completely proves Armstrong doped. So which is it, do we have it already or do we have a lot of hearsay, rumors, etc?



Perhaps you should keep a low profile instead of posting things that are false (i.e. claiming you have actual proof) and posting excrement like the bit here where you take a point being made and turn it into something it was not.

The sad part is that people like you are so emotionally invested in seeing Armstrong burn that you choose to give a free pass to the people that are the real issue. Who, allegedly was giving riders/teams warning? Who, allegedly hid doping positives? Who is claiming there tests are so good that they do not need to be tested for validity(yes that was actually proffered by WADA at one point) yet they, according to you, are easily beaten. If anything Armstrong is a product of an environment created by pro sport (yes other sports are as bad, if not worse, then cycling), WADA and the national ADA's, and the UCI. Unfortunately some people, you included prefer to see Armstrong as the Antichrist and the biggest thing wrong with cycling. It's a naive and unintelligent viewpoint.
This seems like a bit of a straw man to me and also makes a lot of assumptions about what he does or doesn't think, such as assuming he's giving everyone else a free pass but wants to "see Armstrong burn". If there's more discussion about Armstrong (especially on a non-speciality board such as this), it's for a few reasons:

1. He was the most successful cyclist of his era, so of course he's going to be discussed more than some domestique or also-ran would.

2. He's the biggest name in cycling among the English-language media, in North America, and of the last 20 years in the sport as a whole.

3. (to some degree this goes with #2) He has a lot of fans, admirers, media followers, etc. who do not really follow the sport of cycling outside of him; i.e. they are Lance Armstrong fans and not cycling fans.

It's obviously a huge story for the hardcore cycling fans too, but they don't necessarily display the characteristics you are describing. Say what you want about the people who post on The Clinic, but one could never claim they are fixated on Armstrong at the expense of all others. I mean, there's a 5000 post thread on Team Sky along with tons of other threads about their riders, thousands of posts about Contador, etc.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 02:09 PM
  #121
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
Yet people like you continually say we already have evidence that completely proves Armstrong doped. So which is it, do we have it already or do we have a lot of hearsay, rumors, etc?
Some of it is already out there. Ask Emma O'Rielly, Betsy Andreau, Stephanie McIlvain, Mike Anderson. They have all told what they know and it is all out there. Of course to you that's not good enough. Anything anybody says is hearsay to you. As Travis Tygart said, more will come out in due time. But it will never be enough for people like you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
Perhaps you should keep a low profile instead of posting things that are false (i.e. claiming you have actual proof) and posting excrement like the bit here where you take a point being made and turn it into something it was not.
WTF???? Did I just shoot a hole in your only supporting "evidence"? 500 tests passed? lol!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
The sad part is that people like you are so emotionally invested in seeing Armstrong burn that you choose to give a free pass to the people that are the real issue. Who, allegedly was giving riders/teams warning? Who, allegedly hid doping positives? Who is claiming there tests are so good that they do not need to be tested for validity(yes that was actually proffered by WADA at one point) yet they, according to you, are easily beaten. If anything Armstrong is a product of an environment created by pro sport (yes other sports are as bad, if not worse, then cycling), WADA and the national ADA's, and the UCI. Unfortunately some people, you included prefer to see Armstrong as the Antichrist and the biggest thing wrong with cycling. It's a naive and unintelligent viewpoint.
I don't give a **** about LA. I care about the sport and the massive fraud he perpetrated on it. It can't be allowed to stand and it can't be allowed to be repeated. See my other post regarding the facilitators of his fraud. The UCI needs to be taken down and the sport needs to start over.

Eddie Shack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 02:14 PM
  #122
Francesa
(╯□)╯︵ SƖ ןɥu ɐǝ
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 184,516
vCash: 500
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...162605579.html

Quote:
Last week, after iconic American cyclist Lance Armstrong said he would no longer fight the charges brought against him by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, many wondered if Livestrong--the foundation for cancer survivors founded by the seven-time Tour de France winner and testicular cancer survivor--would suffer as a result.
It doesn't look like it.

On Friday, Armstrong said that donations to Livestrong were up 25 times over the day before. "Thank you thank you thank you!" he wrote on Twitter.

Doug Ulman, Livestrong's chief executive, told ESPN that the foundation had received $78,000 in unsolicited donations in the 24 hours following the announcement of Armstrong's decision. Compare that to Thursday, when Livestrong received just $3,200.

"It's been really tricky for the organization to be able to deal with all of these challenges to Lance's image," Stacey Palmer, editor of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, told NPR, "but one of the things that's so interesting is that they've managed to increase their fundraising and demonstrate that they're much beyond what his role is."

Francesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 02:55 PM
  #123
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
In other words people said what you are dying to hear so you automatically believe them and claim its evidence. That speaks volumes about you.

Oh and putting Betsy on their makes me laugh. I have had a number of interactions with her, none of which had anything to do with LA or even a mention of him! And can tell you that women has some issues.
So let me understand this. People say things in the public domain and there is something wrong with me believing them, but you make disparaging remarks about one of those people with no detail and we are all supposed to believe your discrediting her? That's precious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
You really need to either learn how to read what someone writes AND comprehend what is written or quite lying in order to be able to declare yourself a winner in an argument you create.
Ah yes, a page out of the LA playbook. When you don't like the message, insult and try to discredit the messenger. Personally attacking me does not substantiate your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
That is complete BS. If you cared about the sport you would be all about busting current riders, doctors and DS's, about getting rid of a corrupt UCI, forcing WADA and the ADA's to be transparent instead of getting worked up with anger at LA and resorting to make things up in order to attack people who understand that LA is not the real issue with cycling. This is all about some irrational, emotional investment you have in LA and everything else is secondary, at best.
Once again you choose to attack me and claim you know what I think. I've not spoken on the issues you list other than the UCI in which case I make the same point you do.

If you can't discuss the issues professionally without calling me a liar or my comments BS please stop responding to them.

Eddie Shack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:13 PM
  #124
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Oh I agree, that was one of the most obvious examples where the research the writer did wasn't deep enough (but at the end of the day I can't really blame him, it was just a blog post). And maybe that's part of the point: a quick superficial analysis and we are already at domestiques like Escartin, Kivilev, and Totschnig "winning" the TdF without even getting into whether or not they were doped.

I suspect from about 1991 until 2005 (or even further) it was very, very rare for anyone in the top 5 to be clean, and probably most of the top 10.
I just did a quick scan of the Armstrong years in the Tour, and David Moncouties 13th place in 2002 seems to be the best placement by a clean guy or very likely clean guy I could spot. Going back all the way to '91 I'd guess that Greg Lemonds 7th place might be the best placement in the era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
That is complete BS. If you cared about the sport you would be all about busting current riders, doctors and DS's, about getting rid of a corrupt UCI, forcing WADA and the ADA's to be transparent instead of getting worked up with anger at LA and resorting to make things up in order to attack people who understand that LA is not the real issue with cycling. This is all about some irrational, emotional investment you have in LA and everything else is secondary, at best.
USADA has already banned Michele Ferrari, Luis Garcia Del Moral and Pepe Marti as a part of the same investigation that Armstrong was a part of. They are respectively a doctor who made a career out of 'training' (read doping) cyclists including Armstrong, a team doctor for US Postal and a trainer associated with US Postal. Those are all people who were still working in pro cycling or was until recently. They just didn't get the same press Armstrong did because they are not a household name. Getting people like these out of the sport is much more important than convicting Armstrong now, although it has to be said that it is still important to show that just because you retired, it doesn't mean they won't come for you if you cheated.
As a part of the same investigation are also Johan Bruyneel and Pedro Celaya, whos cases are yet to be resolved. Bruyneel is DS for Radioshack and was DS for Armstrong during all his Tour victories, and Celaya is still working as team doctor under Bruyneel, like he was during the Armstrong years.

Personally I think Armstrong is an arrogant ***** and I have nothing but contempt for him. But at this point, it would make me much happier to see the likes of Bruyneel and Ferrari out of the sport, than it would make me see Armstrong lose his titles.

Jevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:13 PM
  #125
PlagerBros*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Shack View Post
So let me understand this. People say things in the public domain and there is something wrong with me believing them, but you make disparaging remarks about one of those people with no detail and we are all supposed to believe your discrediting her? That's precious.
Huge difference, but your blind anger at Armstrong does not allow you to see this. I posted a personal belief I have about one person based on interactions with them. You claim that simply because someone made a claim then it is evidence. Funny how that only goes one way in this matter...in your mind.



Quote:
Ah yes, a page out of the LA playbook. When you don't like the message, insult and try to discredit the messenger. Personally attacking me does not substantiate your position.
Irony? I ask because everything you have said comes straight from the addled "brains" over at the clinic and the fact that you have repeatedly insulted and attacked me, including flat out making things up. You really should join over there, they are certainly your type of people.



Quote:
Once again you choose to attack me and claim you know what I think. I've not spoken on the issues you list other than the UCI in which case I make the same point you do.

If you can't discuss the issues professionally without calling me a liar or my comments BS please stop responding to them.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I only base my responses on things you choose to post. If those things are not what you really believe then you should stop posting them. If they are then don't cry like a baby when you get called on them.

When it comes to the part in bold, I suggest you take a look in the mirror since you are as guilty, if not more guilty then I.

Now, will you step up and follow your own advice or continue down the same road. It's up to you, but I am thinking I know what your choice will be.

PlagerBros* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.