More Armstrong Fodder

[branflakes]

i'm sure most of you read the dailies, but this it the latest cyclingnews article.

Armstrong: “It was impossible to win Tour de France without doping” (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-it-was-impossible-to-win-tour-de-france-without-doping)

while i imagine just the title of this post lost more than half of the potential viewership, and i understand why, there was one quote (via LA) in the article that really summarizes the whole imbroligio imo....

The USADA report has proved capable of destroying the life of one man but has done nothing for cycling.

whether you like him or not is irrelevant. whether you appreciate the sport is. i have been rather indifferent to a TRC, and kind of felt LA was simply being victimized by his own karma. he certainly deserves the global blowback, but i am more concerned with the sport as a whole than ensuring he is punished accordingly.

so, why the real hesitation to a TRC by the UCI if as a body they are charged to promote and protect cycling?

.....i have more to add, but i thought i'd at least maybe get it started.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I was pretty sure Dopestrong wouldn't be able to keep his trap shut this week, even though I'm betting all his handlers told him he should STFU and lay low.

This week's media show has been as entertaining as I imagine the actual race will be. There's as many factions as possible trying to take advantage of the centenary run-up to grab some cheap publicity.

Go away, Lance . . . :crap:

BBD

[FlashUNC]

so, why the real hesitation to a TRC by the UCI if as a body they are charged to promote and protect cycling?



The answer's as obvious as the reason USADA went after Armstrong -- those are the real big fish.

For all the public bluster, the UCI turned a blind eye to doping for a long, long time. The accusation they made Armstrong's Tour de Suisse positive disappear is damning for Verbruggen and McQuaid.

USADA treated this a lot like a mob racketeering case. Pursue the underlings -- in this case Armstrong -- and then use them as fodder to go after the heads of the family.

This is all about McQuaid and Verbruggen saving their own skins in this sordid affair.

[false_Aest]

For all the public bluster, the UCI turned a blind eye to doping for a long, long time. .


You should probably fix that so its present tense too.

[branflakes]

this velonews article from last year kind of summarizes where i was going with the post.

Opinion: Does pro cycling need a Marvin Miller? (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/opinion-does-pro-cycling-need-a-marvin-miller_234585)

@BBD - you're spot on re: media. LA is merely their vehicle. unfortunately it's in the media's long-term best interest to continue reporting about doping, and milk LA for all he's worth. i guess it's only fair....he did it to them.

[chengher87]

This dude either needs to start naming names and detailing the doping program he helped manage at Postal, or just plain needs to stop talking. He claims to be under the ruse of "helping cycling" and statements like these don't really seem to fit the bill.

All I've taken away from his entire achievements is that he's a narcisstic attention whore who's only in it for himself with little care for doing the right thing in any facet of life. Cycling debacles are a distant second.

[FlashUNC]

You should probably fix that so its present tense too.

Now I think its just a really bad case of cataracts.

They know it's there and bad from a PR perspective, but they don't really care about fixing it, just keeping it out of the headlines.

[BumbleBeeDave]

All I've taken away from his entire achievements is that he's a narcisstic attention whore who's only in it for himself with little care for doing the right thing in any facet of life. Cycling debacles are a distant second.

. . . you just about covered it.

BBD

[retrofit]

Armstrong: “It was impossible to win Tour de France without doping”

Dear Lance,

I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

Vive le Tour.

[branflakes]

This dude either needs to start naming names and detailing the doping program he helped manage at Postal, or just plain needs to stop talking. He claims to be under the ruse of "helping cycling" and statements like these don't really seem to fit the bill.

All I've taken away from his entire achievements is that he's a narcisstic attention whore who's only in it for himself with little care for doing the right thing in any facet of life. Cycling debacles are a distant second.
. . . you just about covered it.

BBD


ok, this is what i was afraid of...i wasn't trying to bring out the anti or pro LA brigade. we all have opine re:. i was hopeful to focus on why he is even still relevant to the discussion.

as i see it, here are the facts:

LA doped, and won, repeatedly
untold previous riders, and winners, doped before him
there will be riders in tomorrow's peloton who are doped
as long as the skeletons remain in the closet, curious people will want to bring them to light
all the while, UCI and ASO continue to control the sport, and increasingly profit from it


thus, where is their incentive to actually implement any changes. the game itself never changes, just the participants faces. the infrastructure is strong, and affords a wealth of protections. who is 'management' accountable to? it's obviously not the sport itself. it's definitely not the riders. it can be marginally argued it's to the sponsors, but look at the turnover in team sponsorship.

imo, as long as 'management' continues to be purely self-serving, only the faces will change, never the game.

please someone read the article about unionizing cyclists and provide a reasonable discussion on the merits of such an idea given the state of our sport - politically, perceptively, financially, competitively and forward thinking.

[jr59]

You should probably fix that so its present tense too.


Correct.

I don't see the big deal at all. In 1910 a rider wrote a book about the tour and claimed it took dope to ride in it. I'm to lazy to look up who wrote it.

It's been that way since the start of the TDF. What's different now? The internet? Where a bunch of fans can moan and complain about doping in the tour? It's a dirty sport and always has been. So what? I like it, so I follow it, I know they are doing EVERYTHING they can to gain an advantage, again, so what? It entertains me, and isn't that what sport at the pro level is suppose to do?

[Rueda Tropical]

Armstrong's statement is only half true. To win, you need to dope and not get caught. So in the end Armstrong lost those 7 tours according to the unwritten doper rules fair and square.

[jr59]

Armstrong's statement is only half true. To win, you need to dope and not get caught. So in the end Armstrong lost those 7 tours according to the unwritten doper rules fair and square.


correct

[pdmtong]

Remember the year Floyd spoke out on the eve of the tour and was lambasted by Lance?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . to the rest of us because he was the ringleader and enforcer of an organized cheating scheme that went beyond anything else we know of for many, many years into the past and he has the knowledge that would be necessary to truly contribute to clean up pro cycling.

But it's also apparent to me that he thinks he's relevant mainly because he wants the attention to gratify his ego and he pretty obviously has no intention of following through on actually providing any of the needed information to do what he keeps claiming he wants to do--clean up pro cycling. Pure hypocrisy and self-serving BS.

If he really wants to start providing this information then he's entirely relevant to the discussion and I welcome his participation. But until he does start providing that information he needs to go away and let the spotlight be on the current athletes and the current event. But he can't do that because of his personality and it's exactly what I expected him to do.

As for incentives . . . the best incentive would be for UCI either to have a total change of leadership or else be abolished by, well, whoever has the power to abolish it, and start over. It's very difficult, IMO, for any sponsors, riders, teams, etc., who DO have some honor and ethics to be willing to participate if there is no confidence in the UCI or similar managing commission.

BBD

ok, this is what i was afraid of...i wasn't trying to bring out the anti or pro LA brigade. we all have opine re:. i was hopeful to focus on why he is even still relevant to the discussion.

as i see it, here are the facts:

LA doped, and won, repeatedly
untold previous riders, and winners, doped before him
there will be riders in tomorrow's peloton who are doped
as long as the skeletons remain in the closet, curious people will want to bring them to light
all the while, UCI and ASO continue to control the sport, and increasingly profit from it


thus, where is their incentive to actually implement any changes. the game itself never changes, just the participants faces. the infrastructure is strong, and affords a wealth of protections. who is 'management' accountable to? it's obviously not the sport itself. it's definitely not the riders. it can be marginally argued it's to the sponsors, but look at the turnover in team sponsorship.

imo, as long as 'management' continues to be purely self-serving, only the faces will change, never the game.

please someone read the article about unionizing cyclists and provide a reasonable discussion on the merits of such an idea given the state of our sport - politically, perceptively, financially, competitively and forward thinking.

[norcalbiker]

Every year whoever dope the most and not get caught win the tour. Simple as that. Now if no one, I mean really no one do dope, then it would be a different kind of TDF.

[chengher87]

. . . to the rest of us because he was the ringleader and enforcer of an organized cheating scheme that went beyond anything else we know of for many, many years into the past and he has the knowledge that would be necessary to truly contribute to clean up pro cycling.

But it's also apparent to me that he thinks he's relevant mainly because he wants the attention to gratify his ego and he pretty obviously has no intention of following through on actually providing any of the needed information to do what he keeps claiming he wants to do--clean up pro cycling. Pure hypocrisy and self-serving BS.

If he really wants to start providing this information then he's entirely relevant to the discussion and I welcome his participation. But until he does start providing that information he needs to go away and let the spotlight be on the current athletes and the current event. But he can't do that because of his personality and it's exactly what I expected him to do.

As for incentives . . . the best incentive would be for UCI either to have a total change of leadership or else be abolished by, well, whoever has the power to abolish it, and start over. It's very difficult, IMO, for any sponsors, riders, teams, etc., who DO have some honor and ethics to be willing to participate if there is no confidence in the UCI or similar managing commission.

BBD

Agreed.

[branflakes]

I swear you're being misdirected by the magic of the puppeteer. LA is guilty. He's swine. He's a miserable human being. He's intolerable. He's petty. He's self-righteous and self-serving. He's all of these things, and then he's a tragic fool.

LA is merely a sacrificial lamb in the overall picture. I think @FlashUNC had it accurate when describing the investigation as like the mob racketeering case. The hefe is insulated, protected by the flock. When one of the flock falls, another hops right in its place. 'Management' couldn't have asked for a better antagonist than LA. He was digging his own grave all along. LA began believing in the lie, and the rest is history.

What incentive did the UCI or ASO have in stopping him? None I would suggest. The organization did nothing but continue to grow their property thanks to LA. He took cycling to new levels, doping included. He brought cycling to a truly global stage, and got major American $$$ to want to be a part of it. I'd venture to guess that the economic impact of LA on cycling is unlike that of any other individual on their sport. I know the detractors are going to point to all the negative press now as devaluing that impact, and rightly so, but there's an old adage that no publicity is bad publicity.

So, sure, now the bosses disavow anything LA. His production is but a footnote. Yet his impact is lasting. The organizations that run cycling continue to laugh all the way to the bank, while the rest of us vilify the easily villainous. I'm asking you to see beyond LA. See tomorrow's race. See the chance one of your kids wants to pursue the sport seriously. See the lack of action by those who can actually effect change. The continued intimidation of those desirous to speak of yesteryear in truth. See the fact participants are thrown in, chewed up, and left with little other than memories (unless you're the elite, elite) and what ifs.

LA didn't completely make cycling what it is today, he didn't end it, and he certainly isn't solely responsible for fixing it. Yes the UCI should probably be imploded, but replaced by what? The riders need some protection on and off the course. Until they get it, it's going to continue to be the way it has been: one scandal after another while the puppeteers keep cashing bigger checks.

[SpokeValley]

i was pretty sure dopestrong wouldn't be able to keep his trap shut this week, even though i'm betting all his handlers told him he should stfu and lay low.

This week's media show has been as entertaining as i imagine the actual race will be. There's as many factions as possible trying to take advantage of the centenary run-up to grab some cheap publicity.

Go away, lance . . . :crap:

Bbd

+1

[Lewis Moon]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9bxmlotfH1qmet6uo1_500.jpg

[Tony T]

"You need to be on drugs to watch the Tour de France" -- Stephen Colbert

[norcalbiker]

"You need to be on drugs to watch the Tour de France" -- Stephen Colbert

:banana:

[cash05458]

"so, why the real hesitation to a TRC by the UCI if as a body they are charged to promote and protect cycling?"

because the UCI long ago discarded any intention of protecting cycling as a pure sport...maybe it is doubtful they ever had that idea even...rather, they want to promote it as a money maker and drugged up anemic greyhounds on bikes are what they think the public wants...

[chengher87]

I swear you're being misdirected by the magic of the puppeteer. LA is guilty. He's swine. He's a miserable human being. He's intolerable. He's petty. He's self-righteous and self-serving. He's all of these things, and then he's a tragic fool.

LA is merely a sacrificial lamb in the overall picture. I think @FlashUNC had it accurate when describing the investigation as like the mob racketeering case. The hefe is insulated, protected by the flock. When one of the flock falls, another hops right in its place. 'Management' couldn't have asked for a better antagonist than LA. He was digging his own grave all along. LA began believing in the lie, and the rest is history.

What incentive did the UCI or ASO have in stopping him? None I would suggest. The organization did nothing but continue to grow their property thanks to LA. He took cycling to new levels, doping included. He brought cycling to a truly global stage, and got major American $$$ to want to be a part of it. I'd venture to guess that the economic impact of LA on cycling is unlike that of any other individual on their sport. I know the detractors are going to point to all the negative press now as devaluing that impact, and rightly so, but there's an old adage that no publicity is bad publicity.

So, sure, now the bosses disavow anything LA. His production is but a footnote. Yet his impact is lasting. The organizations that run cycling continue to laugh all the way to the bank, while the rest of us vilify the easily villainous. I'm asking you to see beyond LA. See tomorrow's race. See the chance one of your kids wants to pursue the sport seriously. See the lack of action by those who can actually effect change. The continued intimidation of those desirous to speak of yesteryear in truth. See the fact participants are thrown in, chewed up, and left with little other than memories (unless you're the elite, elite) and what ifs.

LA didn't completely make cycling what it is today, he didn't end it, and he certainly isn't solely responsible for fixing it. Yes the UCI should probably be imploded, but replaced by what? The riders need some protection on and off the course. Until they get it, it's going to continue to be the way it has been: one scandal after another while the puppeteers keep cashing bigger checks.

Misdirected? No, Lance Armstrong is relevant not because of himself, but what he represents. The big-time athlete that a sport can latch onto and promote. Basketball had Bird and Magic, Baseball had Cal Ripken Jr., Soccer had Pele and Maradona, etc. Is the UCI to blame? Yes, but it's not as if the UCI conceived in the 1900s was for the sole purpose of breeding the version of cycling you see today. Every cyclist that has come out with doping admissions has said that the reason they did is because they worked hard to stay one step ahead of the UCI. Is that the UCI's fault? The UCI has a more comprehensive in and out of competition testing regiment than nearly every other sport (NFL, MLB and NBA players associations are constantly fighting random PED testing).

Cyclists have a voice and if they spoke up as a whole, then it would matter. But the issue is that those that have spoken out are not only reprimanded by the UCI for doing so, but are ostracized by their peers. In the wake of the Festina affair, nearly every rider felt the ASO (or whoever was running the tour then) and the UCI were neo nazis and they protested the fact the proper actions were taken to investigating by the UCI (and local authorities)...not the fact that doping had occurred. The UCI took the right steps, they get lambasted. Dr. Fuentes publicly proclaimed that systematic doping didn't exist at the time (way before Operacion Puerto). Bassons was essentially blacklisted from professional cycling and ignored by the peloton.

I don't love the UCI (not by a longshot, been calling for Verbruggen and McQuaid's heads' for some time), but to say that Lance Armstrong is just another small fish in a big pond (the UCI) is an oversight. He had influence, and the only thing he did with that influence was to cover his ass. Not to say that he isn't the only one. Ullrich, Pantani, Indurain, Virenque are all just as guilty for their action/non-action. They aren't hapless cyclists, tied down by the UCI.

I don't think a cycling union (like the players associations in other sports) is the fix because of the structure of cycling is much different than other professional sports. What they need to do is eliminate the UCI leadership as one guy. One reason (among many) that women's cycling isn't doing so well is because McQuaid could care less about it, resulting in sponsors cutting back funding because if it's not worth the UCI's time, its not worth their time. Form a committee or so with a cyclist and administrative presence from each of the cycling disciplines and eliminate the individual country affiliated cycling federations. Having Spain drag out Contador's clenbuterol case so he could ride the Tour (a slap in the face of the UCI) was stupid.

The ASO and other race organizers making money is fine by me, as long as they use that money to help fund other cycling ventures. The ASO makes more than enough money that they should be able to help revive the women's TdF with aid from sponsors. The UCI with all the money they solicit from bike, kit, helmet, etc. manufacturers should also use some of their money to help fund women's and amateur races. The UCI isn't the only corrupt entity that needs to be reformed (I'm looking at you NCAA). T

[bikingshearer]

Let's be realistic here - the UCI didn't give a rat's backside about drugs until people started dying and maiming themselves in a way that could not be hidden.

Roger Riviere broke his back and ended his career during the 1960 TdF by riding off a cliff on a descent because he was trying to follow the best kamikaze descender of the time (Gastone Nencini) while so doped on speed he couldn't work the brake levers. How do we know? He admitted it.

At the 1960 Olympics, a member of the Dutch 100km team time trial team dropped dead on his bike from a speed overdose. How do we know? The autopsy. This was hushed up.

In 1967, Tom Simpson dropped dead on Mt. Ventoux. It wasn't an OD of speed, but he had taken enough so that, hard man as he was, he was able to force himself to ride through the signs that would have stopped an undoped Tom Simpson in time to be treated. Dropping dead on live television got noticed - this was a big deal.

These incidents, along with the growing immediacy of TV coverage, more or less forced the UCI to pretend to give a damn. Before then, everyone, and I mean everyone, knew what was going on - hell, it had been going on since the 1800s - but with far less scrutiny and far less coverage, it was far easier to gloss over. As Jacques Anquetil famously said, no one could ride, much less win, the Tour de France on mineral water alone, and Fausto Coppi, among others,talked fairly openly about "la bomba." The UCI has had to be dragged, occasionally kicking and screaming, into making incremental improvements to the fight against PEDs in the peloton. The organization as a whole genuinely cares more now than it used to, but not by a whole lot.

[BumbleBeeDave]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/van-garderen-armstrong-should-talk-to-the-authorities-about-doping_292359

“If he’s saying things like he doesn’t think it’s possible to win the Tour clean, then he should be quiet because it is possible, but if he wants to come out and say, ‘I’m sorry for what I did and I’m glad things are better now,’ which is the actual truth, then I think he’s the voice that people should listen to,” added van Garderen. “It really depends on what he’s going to say to whether or not people should listen to him.”

Armstrong should work with the anti-doping authorities, according to van Garderen, if he has useful information.

BBD

[jr59]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/van-garderen-armstrong-should-talk-to-the-authorities-about-doping_292359


“If he’s saying things like he doesn’t think it’s possible to win the Tour clean, then he should be quiet because it is possible, but if he wants to come out and say, ‘I’m sorry for what I did and I’m glad things are better now,’ which is the actual truth, then I think he’s the voice that people should listen to,” added van Garderen. “It really depends on what he’s going to say to whether or not people should listen to him.”

Armstrong should work with the anti-doping authorities, according to van Garderen, if he has useful information.

BBD

Why??? What does LA have to gain. His name is already as dirty as it can be, with still more to come.

Let's be realistic here - the UCI didn't give a rat's backside about drugs until people started dying and maiming themselves in a way that could not be hidden.

Roger Riviere broke his back and ended his career during the 1960 TdF by riding off a cliff on a descent because he was trying to follow the best kamikaze descender of the time (Gastone Nencini) while so doped on speed he couldn't work the brake levers. How do we know? He admitted it.

At the 1960 Olympics, a member of the Dutch 100km team time trial team dropped dead on his bike from a speed overdose. How do we know? The autopsy. This was hushed up.

In 1967, Tom Simpson dropped dead on Mt. Ventoux. It wasn't an OD of speed, but he had taken enough so that, hard man as he was, he was able to force himself to ride through the signs that would have stopped an undoped Tom Simpson in time to be treated. Dropping dead on live television got noticed - this was a big deal.

These incidents, along with the growing immediacy of TV coverage, more or less forced the UCI to pretend to give a damn. Before then, everyone, and I mean everyone, knew what was going on - hell, it had been going on since the 1800s - but with far less scrutiny and far less coverage, it was far easier to gloss over. As Jacques Anquetil famously said, no one could ride, much less win, the Tour de France on mineral water alone, and Fausto Coppi, among others,talked fairly openly about "la bomba." The UCI has had to be dragged, occasionally kicking and screaming, into making incremental improvements to the fight against PEDs in the peloton. The organization as a whole genuinely cares more now than it used to, but not by a whole lot.


It's a dirty sport and always has been. It's going to go on that way until they change the tour itself. (not going to happen)

Let Lance say what he wants. His talk means nothing.

If you need to be upset, be upset about who prints what LA says. It's old news, they took the titles away in the record book only. People still know who won in those years. Maybe 75 years from now when no one is alive to remember, then they will look back and think he didn't win.

But all of what LA says now is just noise. Yet the media still prints it up. Strange indeed!

[bostondrunk]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/van-garderen-armstrong-should-talk-to-the-authorities-about-doping_292359

“If he’s saying things like he doesn’t think it’s possible to win the Tour clean, then he should be quiet because it is possible, but if he wants to come out and say, ‘I’m sorry for what I did and I’m glad things are better now,’ which is the actual truth, then I think he’s the voice that people should listen to,” added van Garderen. “It really depends on what he’s going to say to whether or not people should listen to him.”

Armstrong should work with the anti-doping authorities, according to van Garderen, if he has useful information.

BBD

Van Garderen is full of ****. Every cyclist during Armstrongs time knows it was impossible to win without doping. That is why all the top riders were doped.
Bumblebee, I swear you monitor these forums just so you can jump on the lance hate threads.
I think we should have a hate thread for Jalabert. Wait, wait, no, everyone loved him, he's a good guy.....

[BumbleBeeDave]

Van Garderen is full of ****. Every cyclist during Armstrongs time knows it was impossible to win without doping. That is why all the top riders were doped.
Bumblebee, I swear you monitor these forums just so you can jump on the lance hate threads.
I think we should have a hate thread for Jalabert. Wait, wait, no, everyone loved him, he's a good guy.....

I think you may have misread what TJ said. He is not disputing that doping was needed during Armstrong's win period. He's saying he feels it's not needed now and that if Armstrong is implying it is, then he's wrong and he needs to be quiet, since he's not racing now and doesn't really know the score.

At least, that was my take on the article.

Feel free to start a hate thread for Jalabert . . . I'd probably chime in.

As to monitoring the forum. Why, yes, I do! Now why was that, again? . . . Perhaps because, ah, um, maybe because I'm an, er, um . . . MODERATOR???

Maybe time for a bit of detox, BD? :p

BBD

[Elefantino]

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l84/gmmtwo/MarvinK_zpsc4b3d176.jpg (http://s94.photobucket.com/user/gmmtwo/media/MarvinK_zpsc4b3d176.jpg.html)

[c-record]

People hate Jalabert? Why?

[djg21]

Agreed.

It's telling that he fancies himself the victim. He could have cooperated with anti-doping authorities during the investigation, but he declined and instead tried to litigate and out-resource his way out of his predicament.

He will ultimately cooperate in an effort to rehabilitate himself somewhat by accusing every other pro rider in the tours he participated in of doping. He has no credibility though, given his years of denials and outright lies.

[fiamme red]

People hate Jalabert? Why?He's a former cyclist who took up running (NYC marathon), as did Armstrong. ;)

[slidey]

Haha...well played :p

Armstrong's statement is only half true. To win, you need to dope and not get caught.

[pbarry]

It's telling that he fancies himself the victim. He could have cooperated with anti-doping authorities during the investigation, but he declined and instead tried to litigate and out-resource his way out of his predicament.

He will ultimately cooperate in an effort to rehabilitate himself somewhat by accusing every other pro rider in the tours he participated in of doping. He has no credibility though, given his years of denials and outright lies.

Well said, tho I think he'll pick and choose those who have crossed him when naming names, (unless jail time is on the table: Then he'll spill his guts). Lance will never understand the gist of fair play or the idea of what "for the good of the sport" means, outside of how it affects him:

“The USADA report has proved capable of destroying the life of one man but has done nothing for cycling.”

[PaulE]

The USADA report has proved capable of destroying the life of one man but has done nothing for cycling.

LA has proved capable of destroying the lives of many but cries that his life has been destroyed.

[djg21]

Lance Armstrong has transformed himself into something totally unexpected. At this point, almost eight months after he was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, Armstrong should be in the middle of an extraordinary comeback, a riveting recovery from disgrace. I thought he had it in him. I really did. I thought I recognized a little bit of Bill Clinton's elasticity there.

Instead, the man who launched 80 million yellow bracelets has become astonishingly banal. In his recent interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, he offered a toddler's rationalization. It amounted to: Everyone else was doping, so I still see myself as the seven-time champion.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/52357070/

[branflakes]

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/52357070/
it's a well-written piece with plenty of zing. i'm still concerned it obfuscates (to use her word) the bigger story. lance played himself out as a big fish in a small pond. but, stretch the story out to pre and post lance, and he's really a small fish in a big pond.

was he the most egregious? yes! was he the most calculating? yes? was he the most ruthless? absolutely! he is most definitely 'the joker,' but where is the 'batman?' cycling doesn't have one!

imo, if lance wants to actually make a difference and reestablish some credibility, he won't just start naming names, he'll forge a relationship with USADA and together battle the establishment. i'm not sure tygart and LA's egos will fit in the same room, let alone long enough to conjure a plan to rescue cycling from itself.