No Grand fondo for Lance

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I don't see any reason why the organizers would need a USAC permit for a Grand Fondo. About the only thing that a USAC permit gets you for a "fun ride" is insurance coverage - but there's other places to get that. The organizers should simply get their insurance (and whatever services USAC might provide) from somewhere else and then anyone can participate.

As you say, you can get event insurance from an independent agent, however by sanctioning with USAC it makes things easier. USAC can also offer registration services, but this event isn;t using them.

A few years ago, UCI Masters Road Worlds qualifying was via USAC sanctioned Gran Fondos.

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

While preventing Lance (in isolation) from riding a recreational Fondo in absolute terms seems petty, I will say that in relative terms, when I read it I didn't like it. He does have a life ban from the professional sport.

In fact, I don't like much of the cheery gang of USPS guys hanging around the younger active pros that are there. There are quotes about TJVG training with Lance etc.

It comes down to role models. Literally, role.... models.... if I'm a pro, to me it looks like Mr. Hincapie did everything right. He's winning at life. He had a long and successful professional career. He's got a healthy business. He's got his events. Why not follow his role? Why doesn't a young pro model his life after that? He's done pretty well, no?

I also agree that these guys can and should be able to move on. That's fair. But do so away from the professional world of cycling. I actually find it hard to understand how guys who are so vocal in the media about "doping cheats" want to go and do this ride anyway.

(sorry for being so verbose)

TJ rides for a team managed by Ochowicz and owned by Andy Rihs. Doing a recreational ride for charity that includes a few retired cyclists is insignificant compared to that.

Personally I think trying to shame the young guys into upholding the scapegoating of a few riders is corrosive to the sport. They would be better off being honest about the past.

[rustychisel]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

TJ rides for a team managed by Ochowicz and owned by Andy Rihs. Doing a recreational ride for charity that includes a few retired cyclists is insignificant compared to that.

Personally I think trying to shame the young guys into upholding the scapegoating of a few riders is corrosive to the sport. They would be better off being honest about the past.

Good points. But who is 'they' and the evidence seems to suggest 'the past' is still very much with us (as you infer in mentioning Ochowicz and Rihs).

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

what strikes me odd is how Betsy Andreu is involved in about every article that comes out about Armstrong. Does she spend twenty-four hours a day following Armstrong's every step? She really seems determined to prove that Armstrong was right about her being a crazy axe grinder.

I think this is a bit unfair assumption. Her life was radically changed and her name was completely dragged through the mud - her only crime was telling the truth and doing it under oath after being subpoenaed. She didn't go out publicly against LA until his smear campaign after the testimony.

She is driven just like LA, but she is driven to ensure he gets what he has coming.

If it were me, I'd do much of the same. So I think the lady has earned the right.

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

TJ rides for a team managed by Ochowicz and owned by Andy Rihs. Doing a recreational ride for charity that includes a few retired cyclists is insignificant compared to that.

Personally I think trying to shame the young guys into upholding the scapegoating of a few riders is corrosive to the sport. They would be better off being honest about the past.

There are a lot of people who think Och and Andy Rihs aren't a positive influence either.

It's an active sanction. You know Michele Ferrari legally can't even train amateurs, nevermind pros? Can't even train his fat out of shape cycling buddies or he risks jail time in Italy. He's actively sanctioned for life.

He can still buy a nice place in the Carribean or on the Med., take up golf or scuba diving, live a nice upper-class, free-as-a-bird life. He just has to leave the sport of cycling alone where he's out of the influence. Not so bad.

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by rustychisel

If you were to analyse the article a little more closely you'd realise that it first paraphrases years old news to introduce her name, and that either her 'comment' is based on a tweet or a very very short phone call, almost certainly initiated by the journalist.

If she is involved in comment on every article you've read it may be because her story and message has been unswervingly on point. It's called attribution, and sometimes is more like inference.

This is not a one time thing. In article after article after article she finds a way to get involved. That is not an accident. She has become a professional victim. The way she and her cohort of Internet bullies went after Emma O'Reilly when O'Reilly made up with Armstrong was very telling. Now she wants to prevent Armstrong from doing a charity ride. Really? She needs to get a grip and move on.

Originally Posted by rustychisel

Betsy Andreu was right, correct, and deserves to be recognised as such. Somewhere I have the full transcript of her evidence from back then, not to mention a couple of those interesting mp3 phone recordings which made their way in to the public domain at some point (if you were interested in reviewing the evidence).

I have read the SCA transcripts. The funny thing is that she was as evasive as Armstrong. I recall the questions where she tried to play down how for years she was badgering journalists with constant phone calls to the point they were sick of hearing from her. It is a good assumption that the same hounding of journalists is going on today.

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by velomonkey

I think this is a bit unfair assumption. Her life was radically changed and her name was completely dragged through the mud - her only crime was telling the truth and doing it under oath after being subpoenaed. She didn't go out publicly against LA until his smear campaign after the testimony.

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

This is not a one time thing. In article after article after article she finds a way to get involved. That is not an accident. She has become a professional victim.

This is not a one time thing. In Lance forum post after Lance forum post after Lance forum post you find a way to get involved. That is not an accident. You have become a professional fanboi.

[fuzzalow]

I like Betsy. It is a free country and she does not need to justify or be reticent about anything she does concerning LA. She is out there doin' her thing and not through some shill, corporate attorney or a paid lackey as was sic on her during the time of the machine. If she is thorn in the backside for the rest of their respective days, more power to her.

This is what happens when you mess with the wrong woman.

[weisan]

So I was just out riding trying to catch the last light and you know how it is when you are riding, your brain releasing endorphins, and your body pumping adrenalin, the mind gets fired up, the creative juice starts flowing....i began to ponder over the what-if scenarios. To my attorney pals, i wish to apologize in advance if this exposes my complete ignorance of how our legal system works.

I mean, really, what if Lance ignored the curfew, sneaked out and rode the fondo whether in broad daylight or incognito...what happen then, is his parole officer really going to come after him and if they do, what else can they do to him? What? Add another 300 years to his lifetime ban? Call in child protection services to go after his kids by somehow linking his total disregard for the rules laid down by the governing body to future propensity for parental negligence? Or his creditors placing a lien on the future millions he's going to make from pulling more outrageous publicity stunts? What, seriously?

Sorry...I am probably not riding hard enough, just shooting the breeze.

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.

One: please show me something/anywhere where Frankie or Betsy said anything public about doping or Lance doping prior to the SCA hearing. Anything that's no hearsay.

Two: it's a well known and accepted fact that Lance never, ever wages war. Can you hear the sarcasm.

Let's pretend this is true, which it isn't, LA had a far, far, far greater, bigger and more powerful 'myth.' So excuse me if I still think the guy has got miles to go before comeuppance is met.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by weisan

So I was just out riding trying to catch the last light and you know how it is when you are riding, your brain releasing endorphins, and your body pumping adrenalin, the mind gets fired up, the creative juice starts flowing....i began to ponder over the what-if scenarios. To my attorney pals, i wish to apologize in advance if this exposes my complete ignorance of how our legal system works.

I mean, really, what if Lance ignored the curfew, sneaked out and rode the fondo whether in broad daylight or incognito...what happen then, is his parole officer really going to come after him and if they do, what else can they do to him? What? Add another 300 years to his lifetime ban? Call in child protection services to go after his kids by somehow linking his total disregard for the rules laid down by the governing body to future propensity for parental negligence? Or his creditors placing a lien on the future millions he's going to make from pulling more outrageous publicity stunts? What, seriously?

Sorry...I am probably not riding hard enough, just shooting the breeze.

I'm sure he'd love to put on a fake mustache and enter under an alias. But what happens when he's the first across the line of any competitive event? The other guys who wanted to be first aren't gonna just elbow nudge him, wink, and give him the attaboy!

[weisan]

Originally Posted by The B

I'm sure he'd love to put on a fake mustache and enter under an alias. But what happens when he's the first across the line of any competitive event? The other guys who wanted to be first aren't gonna just elbow nudge him, wink, and give him the attaboy!

Then, in that case, we are in for a treat. I am a sucker for drama and threatrics.

[don compton]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.

You are on the payroll

[indyrider]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

But after a decade of someone calling you every name in the book publicly only to then be vindicated, a little turnabout is fair play I think.

Hear Hear