Now Hincapie has told federal authorities he saw ...

[pdmtong]

The nuclear device has detonated (http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/cycling/articles/2011/05/20/report_hincapie_tells_feds_armstrong_used_peds/)

NEW YORK—A report by "60 Minutes" says George Hincapie, a longtime member of Lance Armstrong's inner circle, has told federal authorities he saw the seven-time Tour de France winner use performance-enhancing drugs.

Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!.ShareThis .A segment of the report aired Friday night on the "CBS Evening News," one day after it broadcast an interview with another former member of Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service team, Tyler Hamilton.

Hamilton said he also used PEDs with Armstrong.

Hincapie has often been depicted as one of Armstrong's most loyal teammates and was with him for all seven Tour victories. In an interview last year, Armstrong said Hincapie was "like a brother to me."

Hincapie is among a number of former Armstrong teammates and employees who have appeared before a federal grand jury in Los Angeles investigating doping in cycling. Hamilton said he testified for six hours before the panel.

Armstrong has steadfastly denied doping.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

[Elefantino]

Move over, Tiger. Lance is in free fall now

[indyrider]

We'll see how LA handles THIS downhill....

[sandbox1979]

Move over, Tiger. Lance is in free fall now

Yep. That is a HUGE blow.

[avalonracing]

Wouldn't it be cool if a cure for cancer based on PEDs came from all of this?

[Big Dan]

Believe George....

[Climb01742]

kinda hard for lance, inc to trash george as they have floyd and tyler.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366749n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

[Tony Edwards]

Assuming it's true Hincapie testified to this - and it certainly seems consistent with his refusal to deny Hamilton's allegations - I find it very hard to understand how any neutral could continue to believe that Lance didn't dope. I still don't think this means he didn't earn his palmares - he managed to completely dominate the rest of the world's elite cyclists, pretty much all of whom were doping - but it does make him a serial liar.

[GoJavs]

In as long as I've followed the sport of cycling, I've never heard, read or seen anyone say anything bad about Hincapie. So, game/set/match as far as I'm concerned.

As far as what that makes Lance in the age of EPO/PEDs, we'll never know. I'll paraphrase something I read in a Marco Pantani bio recently - the best riders likely turned out to be those who's bodies reacted best to the PEDs. Not necessarily the best athletes.

[Louis]

You guys are just all haters. The man has cured cancer and yet you don't believe him. What more does he have to do to convince you?

Lance has never tested positive.

[hairylegs]

Lance was my dad's hero when my mom went through cancer, and he's been MY hero for beating it and has been a tremendous inspiration to me. (My dad passed away from cancer in 2007)

I've gotta decide if he'd still be my hero if I am convinced that he did indeed dope. Shucks.

[bart998]

Yep. George has the credibilty to make it stick. Too bad for Lance. Merckx still rules!

[thegunner]

You guys are just all haters. The man has cured cancer and yet you don't believe him. What more does he have to do to convince you?

Lance has never tested positive.

he should probably share that trade secret with the world :D

[zetroc]

George says he never talked to 60 minutes...

http://twitter.com/#!/ghincapie

[Tony Edwards]

George says he never talked to 60 minutes...

http://twitter.com/#!/ghincapie

The report doesn't claim he talked to them - just that he testified to a grand jury.

[thenewguy11]

Can Armstrong's Tour titles be stripped based on testimony alone and without confirmed failed tests? Assuming he doesn't admit at some point that he doped, I guess.

Interesting I was at a local bike shop when I heard this News and the bike shop employees practically high fived over the it. Why would anyone be so invested in this saga that it elicits such a response? I'm disappointed I suppose but not surprised.

[Climb01742]

George says he never talked to 60 minutes...

http://twitter.com/#!/ghincapie

george doesn't deny the substance of the report.

[oldguy00]

So if they prove he doped, does that make him guilty of anything?
Don't they still have to prove that he used money from US Post to purchase the drugs?

[Len J]

So if they prove he doped, does that make him guilty of anything?
Don't they still have to prove that he used money from US Post to purchase the drugs?

The grand jury was aimed at misappropriation of funds. Several independent testimonies of his drug use coupled with documented payments to drug suppliers would be enough. If LA purjures himself........well

Len

[Tony Edwards]

The irony of the misappropriation allegation is that undeniably, if any team sponsor knew they could win all those TdFs by paying for the cost of a state-of-the-art doping program and not get caught, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The cost of those drugs is nothing compared to the overall cost of team sponsorship, particularly when you're paying the salary of the biggest rock star the sport has ever known.

[malcolm]

In as long as I've followed the sport of cycling, I've never heard, read or seen anyone say anything bad about Hincapie. So, game/set/match as far as I'm concerned.

As far as what that makes Lance in the age of EPO/PEDs, we'll never know. I'll paraphrase something I read in a Marco Pantani bio recently - the best riders likely turned out to be those who's bodies reacted best to the PEDs. Not necessarily the best athletes.


At this point I don't really care, but no drug makes an athlete. You could feed an average joe steroids and epo all day long and they still couldn't hang. These guys are aerobic freaks of nature and the peds just add that additional few percent that make them winners. They all dope and as such Lance won on an even field. The constant lying is just tiresome almost as much as the ones that lied all along then come clean after they are caught or have nothing to lose.

[Dekonick]

I'll chime in - why not?

I appreciate all LA has and continues to do for cancer survivors and for research. I can not deny - not one bit - that he is a fierce competitor and trains hard as hell. As far as dope... I have NO DOUBT that he used PED's - in fact, (too lazy to search it, but true) some PED's are known carcinogens ... and LA did in fact get CA... and in fact some PED's were used in the course of his CA treatment...(think EPO)... and I suspect he used EPO after CA to get cack to the top.

Regardless, he worked his arse off. My main issue is how he uses his team of dogs to take down small fry and claim to be the big man - I call BS.

I still enjoy watching cycling on TV - and no doubt we would have limited to no coverage here if there were no LA... so thanks for that...

LA doped. No doubt in my mind. Bigger issue is perjury... I don't give a rats ass who you are from PRESIDENT of the US to Joe Blow... lie and get caught and I hope they fry your ass... our entire legal system depends on it!

Don't like how some little peon looking to make a name has chased this down to this point... but - lie and I hope you suffer the wrath of the system.

No - and I mean NO person is above the law. Otherwise why have law?

:help:

rant over - I will probably change my opinion again... but NOT about lying under oath...

[rcnute]

Who is the source? Where did the information come from? Maybe the transcript of his grand jury testimony will convince me. Until then it's all unverifiable junk from anonymous sources.

[Shoeman]

Let them all Dope and let the BEST MAN WIN!!!!

[Elefantino]

I will probably change my opinion again... but NOT about lying under oath...
Bet George thought about that, too, when he was on the stand. You don't want to lie to a grand jury.

And he admitted, for the first time, that he doped, too. I have no idea why I am disappointed but I am.

And now, the big question ... what do I do about this yellow thing on my right wrist? :help:

[echelon_john]

I think the larger point (and a byproduct of the grand jury's work) is that this is exactly what Pat McQuaid/the UCI has been saying behind closed doors for a generation. That will be where the real poop hits the propellor.

Let them all Dope and let the BEST MAN WIN!!!!

[fourflys]

this is from George's latest tweet

"As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."

that says a LOT right there if you ask me...

[Dave B]

Bet George thought about that, too, when he was on the stand. You don't want to lie to a grand jury.

And he admitted, for the first time, that he doped, too. I have no idea why I am disappointed but I am.

And now, the big question ... what do I do about this yellow thing on my right wrist? :help:


That you along with others including me have been touched by cancer some how. You want to believe that the foundation is a great thing that allows folks to get help...whatever kind of help they need. Regardless of Lance's sporting history he did have cancer. If he brought it on himself it is still a great thing that he beat it. He made donating and awareness popular.

You wear it like I do to remind you of someone who suffered close to you. That you support kicking cancer's effing arse. Lance is a figure head. He isn't going to cure it himself, but maybe his fame will help someone else cure it.

I think of my father-in-law who told me today his pet scan revealed no more lymphoma cancer in his body. Lance means very little to me with regards to that, but my father-in-law gave me the bracelet as well as the entire family. I am the only one who never took it off.

:beer:

Have faith.

[Hawker]

Let them all Dope and let the BEST MAN WIN!!!!

I think that's what they did, and Lance came out on top.

[goonster]

And now, the big question ... what do I do about this yellow thing on my right wrist? :help:
The big question is "why are we so invested in our sporting champions also being infallible heroes?"

Lance can do great things for cancer research and cancer sufferers and at the same time be a power-hungry jerk and doper.

If you are disappointed today for deluding yourself, blame the genius marketing execs at Nike.

You'll never believe it, but there are mornings when I wake up, and in that first couple of minutes before I'm fully there . . . I totally can't recall who won the 1987 Giro di Lombardia.

Cycling is still beautiful, and always will be, regardless of who wins.

[Fixed]

+1 nicely said
cheers

[Dekonick]

The big question is "why are we so invested in our sporting champions also being infallible heroes?"

Lance can do great things for cancer research and cancer sufferers and at the same time be a power-hungry jerk and doper.

If you are disappointed today for deluding yourself, blame the genius marketing execs at Nike.

You'll never believe it, but there are mornings when I wake up, and in that first couple of minutes before I'm fully there . . . I totally can't recall who won the 1987 Giro di Lombardia.

Cycling is still beautiful, and always will be, regardless of who wins.

Yeah - and honestly in cycling cheating has been there from day one. I don't care one way or the other - it is like a concert - I go to watch and enjoy. HOWEVER once law is involved, do not ***** on the legal system - it all we have. Integrity and the legal system. Lie and you cheat both. The legal system needs to remain as un-corrupt as we can keep it... otherwise we have a system for 2 kinds of people - those in/with power, and the rest of us. It has to be unbiased as possible and fair to all.

I could care less if you dope, paint your house pink, ride campy or (gasp) shimano... but if you lie under oath - F-U!

[anexetastos]

knowing george from living in the next town over and riding with him now and then when he's around, i'll say he's a stand-up guy from a first-person perspective. and as other have noted, from the professional perspective, he's got cred like no one else involved in this thing. if he did testify against LA, well, then stick a fork in LA and take him off the grill. he's done.

the part of it that makes me sad is that all those people who have been inspired, strengthened, found hope to persevere in the face of death, through the Livestrong effort will now be wandering lonely in the wilderness. regardless of what you may think about LA as a person, a cheat, an athlete, what he's done for victims of cancer is a beautiful thing. two people very close to me are cancer survivors (including my mother), and they DID find inspiration in LA. i'm sorry that this beautiful effort is now in jeopardy.

[mgm777]

It is becomming clear that LA doped, but is this really a surprise to anyone who has closely followed the pro peloton? Admittedly, in my mind, this does diminish the credibility of his cycling career. However, he did survive a nasty case of cancer himself. He did establish, build, and market an organization that provides support for cancer survivors, raises cancer awareness, and solicts funds for cancer research. His popularity did provide a boost to US bicycle sales and it could also be argued that his success has indirectly led to increased bicycle awareness, fitness, and attracted more people to the sport in this country and around the world. Similarly, It could be said that his success and popularity has also, indirectly, been a factor in the recent success and long backlogs that cutom framebuilders are currently enjoying in this country. I don't know the guy personally, never met him, and would not characterize myself as either a lover or hater, but he has used his fame & celebrity to do a lot of good. With or without dope, LA is a phenomenal athlete. It is unfortunate that his persona polarizes people to the extent that his detractors eagerly celebrate his demise and supporters refuse to accept his fall from grace, in spite of the growing mountain of overwhelming evidence. The aftermath of all of this will negatively impact more than just LA. I don't think the sport itself will be any cleaner. As he fades into obscurity, so too will much of the "good" that he did.

[Vientomas]

regardless of what you may think about LA as a person, a cheat, an athlete, what he's done for victims of cancer is a beautiful thing.

If you mean that Lance has helped cancer victims by successfully overcoming his cancer and then winning the TdF 7 times, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you take away Lance's post-cancer cycling accomplishments, he is one of many individuals who have "beaten" cancer. If the "beautiful thing" is the inspiration he gave to cancer victims by his post-cancer cycling accomplishments, it it based on lies and fraud. Lance is no better than a snake oil salesman. I would take more inspiration from an "average jane or joe" who overcomes cancer to be able to go back to work and provide for their family, then a "survivor" like Lance who capitalized on the fear and suffering of other cancer victims to fill his own pockets with gold.

[bheight1]

It is becomming clear that LA doped, but is this really a surprise to anyone who has closely followed the pro peloton? Admittedly, in my mind, this does diminish the credibility of his cycling career. However, he did survive a nasty case of cancer himself. He did establish, build, and market an organization that provides support for cancer survivors, raises cancer awareness, and solicts funds for cancer research. His popularity did provide a boost to US bicycle sales and it could also be argued that his success has indirectly led to increased bicycle awareness, fitness, and attracted more people to the sport in this country and around the world. Similarly, It could be said that his success and popularity has also, indirectly, been a factor in the recent success and long backlogs that cutom framebuilders are currently enjoying in this country. I don't know the guy personally, never met him, and would not characterize myself as either a lover or hater, but he has used his fame & celebrity to do a lot of good. With or without dope, LA is a phenomenal athlete. It is unfortunate that his persona polarizes people to the extent that his detractors eagerly celebrate his demise and supporters refuse to accept his fall from grace, in spite of the growing mountain of overwhelming evidence. The aftermath of all of this will negatively impact more than just LA. I don't think the sport itself will be any cleaner. As he fades into obscurity, so too will much of the "good" that he did.


Still, he may yet have a career in politics

[anexetastos]

If you mean that Lance has helped cancer victims by successfully overcoming his cancer and then winning the TdF 7 times, I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
no, that's not what i meant. i would disagree with that thesis also. see below.

[/QUOTE] If the "beautiful thing" is the inspiration he gave to cancer victims by his post-cancer cycling accomplishments, it it based on lies and fraud. Lance is no better than a snake oil salesman. I would take more inspiration from an "average jane or joe" who overcomes cancer to be able to go back to work and provide for their family, then a "survivor" like Lance who capitalized on the fear and suffering of other cancer victims to fill his own pockets with gold.[/QUOTE]
i agree, and that's my point. if he did dope (and at this point, who really believes he didn't?), it has the potential to destroy a zeitgeist that is based on the theory that cancer is a disease that you can beat and come back to lead a successful life. the loss of that would be devastating, because all those people who built their beliefs on his example would now realize they were duped, that they found strength in a fraud, and that maybe they can't come back so strong after all. this may cause some to lose hope, hope that they desperately need. that hope that he provided is the beauty of what he did, and if it now turns out to be a big f'ng lie, then it really sucks for thousands of people. the difference between him and joe six-pack is that he was able to leverage his career as a rockstar in the spotlight in a way that joe would not be able to do. but i'm with you on that -- EVERY success story is a story of inspiration and strength. i know this. i've lived it in a very personal way, with a mother (once) and an aunt/godmother (twice, to the same woman, poor dear, and she's back in the saddle practicing law and helping to support her children. that, my friend, is strength and inspiration).

[Fixed]

sick people's hero . i was in a bike shop a few years ago and had a lance t shirt someone sent me from texas first time i wore it . little girl was in the shop with her mother they were in the shop to buy anything with lance on it. the little girl was bald from chemo .. i heard them talking to the salesman he had nothing there it was a trek store ...well i gave her my t shirt and the little girl cried and the mom cried ..lance helped that little girl he was her hero and for a moment i was too ..
cheers

[jpw]

If LA is found to have been using drugs does he lose his titles?

What if drug abuse precipitated his cancer?

[1happygirl]

sick people's hero . i was in a bike shop a few years ago and had a lance t shirt someone sent me from texas first time i wore it . little girl was in the shop with her mother they were in the shop to buy anything with lance on it. the little girl was bald from chemo .. i heard them talking to the salesman he had nothing there it was a trek store ...well i gave her my t shirt and the little girl cried and the mom cried ..lance helped that little girl he was her hero and for a moment i was too ..
cheers

Awww, Fixed. I'd pick you over Lance ANY DAY. Cool

[1happygirl]

If you mean that Lance has helped cancer victims by successfully overcoming his cancer and then winning the TdF 7 times, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you take away Lance's post-cancer cycling accomplishments, he is one of many individuals who have "beaten" cancer. If the "beautiful thing" is the inspiration he gave to cancer victims by his post-cancer cycling accomplishments, it it based on lies and fraud. Lance is no better than a snake oil salesman. I would take more inspiration from an "average jane or joe" who overcomes cancer to be able to go back to work and provide for their family, then a "survivor" like Lance who capitalized on the fear and suffering of other cancer victims to fill his own pockets with gold.

Hey, I will save this as I it expresses some thoughts I have come to over the years but was not able to express as eloquently. My heros are now mostly local people and the people on the Serotta forum!!!!!

Thanks.

A ps just spoke with several non cycling friends, not esp. admirers of Lance, not exactly haters but to quote "couldn't give a sh*t about him, but" they are mad at this point in history with so much going on that they are spending money on this. To paraphrase, " people don't give a d*mn about some bicycle riders and whether they doped." As they said, (and you can tell not especially peeps that are cycling advocates) why go after Lance after all these years? And "if everyone was doping, so what he was better."

[san]

i wonder who else is going to come out with some kind of story next.

[echappist]

regardless of what you may think about LA as a person, a cheat, an athlete, what he's done for victims of cancer is a beautiful thing.

To paraphrase Camus, Lance, like falsehood, is nothing but a beautiful twilight that enhances every object.

What are truly beautiful are the researchers who spent countless hours designing safer and more potent drugs and the health care professionals who provide first class care to cancer patients. You can look at it any way you want, but hope and inspiration gets you nowhere in the end: I should know, my mother passed away when i was young and everyone was hopeful and inspired by tales of survivors. People are loath to admit this, but having a treatable form of cancer and correct medical care (meds and surgery) is what saves people from cancer.

[Louis]

Somewhere in this pile of revelations there has to be a movie.

Just like the little girl who on Christmas morning found all the s**t at the base of the tree and proceed to look for the pony that had to be around somewhere.

The only question is whether at the end of the script the fallen hero is somehow redeemed (and I can't see how that will happen here) or instead he stays down, to be forever remembered as a cautionary tale, a gifted but fatally flawed individual and boogie man used to scare little kids and junior racers into behaving. (I don't know my Greek tragedies well enough, but I'm sure there's one that applies here.)

Blame it on the "system," blame it on him, blame it on the fans who demand too much from their role models, I don't care; there's plenty to go around. However, I do know that there are honorable and dishonorable ways to extricate yourself from a tight spot, and we all know what Lance's choice was this week - the same one he's been making for years.

[Kontact]

I think it is too bad we invest so much emotion in "heroes" of any stripe - especially sports figures, movie stars and musicians.

Cancer research is and was a worthy cause without LA advocating for it. It is embarrasing that people aren't interested in solving human problems until a celebrity steps in.

Then doping would be a cycling or sport issue - not the humanitarian conundrum so many people have made it.



I would agree with those that say that an all doping peloton is not necessarily a level playing field. People do react differently to drugs, and cyclists that don't want anything to do with doping are not welcome in the pros. Who knows how someone like Graeme Obree would have done in the Tour?

[BengeBoy]

It is embarrasing that people aren't interested in solving human problems until a celebrity steps in.

One of the mysteries of the Livestrong phenomenon -- at least to me -- is the impression that it's the only (or the biggest, or the best) cancer foundation out there.

Check out the financial statements of Livestrong.org online and compare them to others'. Just for starters, the Susan G. Komen Foundation raised about 10x as much money in 2009 as Livestrong.org. (Susan G. Komen is a $350M / year cancer charity; Livestrong is about one-tenth of that size). And the good-old-fashioned American Cancer Society is about 3X bigger than Susan G. Komen (about $1B/year).

Not to mention the fact that we, as US taxpayers, fund about $5 Billion a year in cancer research programs through the National Institutes of Health.

Also, check out Livestrong's spending.

In 2009, they spent $28.8 million, total. The biggest amount, by far, was "legal and professional" fees - $8.5 million. Their legal and professional fees were *twice* the year before. $10 million was spent on "advertising," "staff salaries" and "travel." About $ 5 million was spent on actual "grants and awards."

I'm not saying that Livestrong doesn't do some good, but:
- LA didn't invent cancer charity or cancer research
- Their spending on legal, professional, and advertising expenses seems high to me. Their "legal and professional" fees are 2x the amount they spend on grants and awards; at the Susan G. Komen foundation, grants and awards are about 6x bigger than professional fees.

I'm not an expert on tax-free foundation financial statements - I just took 30 minutes to download and read (publicly available) financial statements from each charity's website.

[Bruce K]

According to Phil and Paul during the ToC
, Hincapie has denied the report and says he did not make any statement like the report

I believe George

But I also believe LA doped whether it is proven or not

I just don't care

BK

[Kontact]

One of the mysteries of the Livestrong phenomenon -- at least to me -- is the impression that it's the only (or the biggest, or the best) cancer foundation out there.

Check out the financial statements of Livestrong.org online and compare them to others'. Just for starters, the Susan G. Komen Foundation raised about 10x as much money in 2009 as Livestrong.org. (Susan G. Komen is a $350M / year cancer charity; Livestrong is about one-tenth of that size). And the good-old-fashioned American Cancer Society is about 3X bigger than Susan G. Komen (about $1B/year).

Not to mention the fact that we, as US taxpayers, fund about $5 Billion a year in cancer research programs through the National Institutes of Health.

Also, check out Livestrong's spending.

In 2009, they spent $28.8 million, total. The biggest amount, by far, was "legal and professional" fees - $8.5 million. Their legal and professional fees were *twice* the year before. $10 million was spent on "advertising," "staff salaries" and "travel." About $ 5 million was spent on actual "grants and awards."

I'm not saying that Livestrong doesn't do some good, but:
- LA didn't invent cancer charity or cancer research
- Their spending on legal, professional, and advertising expenses seems high to me. Their "legal and professional" fees are 2x the amount they spend on grants and awards; at the Susan G. Komen foundation, grants and awards are about 6x bigger than professional fees.

I'm not an expert on tax-free foundation financial statements - I just took 30 minutes to download and read (publicly available) financial statements from each charity's website.
I certainly wasn't implying that LA is the only (or best) show in town. But his fund raising has altered the tone of these investigations from a sports scandal to something else. And that happened because we allow celebrities to be more influential than any other type of person.

Komen focuses on a single type of cancer rather than a single person, and that's worked for them. Which might be why breast cancer is so effectively treated now (but prostate cancer is not).

[asgelle]

According to Phil and Paul during the ToC
, Hincapie has denied the report and says he did not make any statement like the report
That is what Phil and Paul said Hincapie said. It is not what Hincapie, in fact, did say. http://twitter.com/#!/ghincapie
"I can confirm to you I never spoke with "60 Minutes." I have no idea where they got their information."

[Elefantino]

George can say that he hasn't lied:

"It's just unfortunate that that's all people want to talk about now. I'm not going to partake in any cycling-bashing. I have done everything to be the best I can be. ... I want the focus on the future of the sport, what it's done to clean itself up. I believe in cycling and want to support it."

No lies there.

"I can confirm to you that I never spoke with '60 Minutes.' I have no idea where they got their information. As I've said in the past, I continue to be disappointed that people are talking about the past in cycling instead of the future. As for the substance of anything in the '60 Minutes' story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."

No lies there, either.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . makes any of these statements . . .

Any one who has testified in front of the grand jury is not under any compulsion, as far as I know, NOT to repeat publicly what they told the grand jury. They would only have to be very careful to not vary in their public statements from what they told the grand jury or they could face a very real danger of perjury charges. I'm sure there's a lawyer here somewhere who could fill us in on exactly what rules do govern grand jury witnesses.

So if someone like Hamilton is making statements like these on 60 Minutes that are false--according to Armstrong--just to sell some books and he did NOT tell the grand jury those same things, then he is facing very real danger of federal perjury charges just to sell some books. Not such a good trade-off, if you ask me.

Now look at Hincapie . . . He could also come out and say he saw Armstrong dope if he told those same things to the grand jury. But he's Armstrong's bud and his options in this situation are very few if he wants to stand by his friend. I don't know of any statement he's made so far that says he did NOT see Armstrong dope.

Elefantino and asgelle are right, unless there's something else GH has said that I don't know about. He hasn't lied in the eyes of the grand jury or the government IF he indeed told the grand jury he saw Armstrong dope because thus far he hasn't said ANYTHING publicly about what he DID tell the grand jury.

He's treading very carefully, probably on the advice of legal council and PR--likely the exact same lawyers and PR spinners who are advising LA. They're probably telling him he HAS to says something to answer these rumors or he risks indirectly admitting by his silence they are true. So talk but don't really say anything and that's what he's doing.

This is all getting VERY interesting . . .

BBD

[akelman]

Things I'm nearly certain of:

1) Lance doped. Just like the vast majority of riders in the pro peloton in recent decades.

2) Lance is a jerk. He always was arrogant, but he became intolerable in recent years as he insisted that people telling the truth were lying. I really can't stand a sanctimonious liar, a hypocrite who claims to have the moral high ground even as he spews crap. And Lance, it seems, has been just such a hypocrite.

3) Lance was a great rider. At his peak, he was among the very best I've ever seen. It was beautiful to watch someone at the pinnacle of their powers, someone with a laser-like focus on a single goal (the TdF), crush the greatest competition in the world. He had some moments that I'll never forget.

4) His philanthropy far outweighs any of the above. Is he motivated by ego? Is he self-aggrandizing? Yes, it seems so, but I don't really care. He's helped thousands upon thousands upon thousands of suffering people. And so, even if he acted without honor on the bike (and I'm not sure that doping when everyone around him was doping was all that dishonorable), even if he damaged the reputations of people whom he once called his friends (this, without any question, is the very definition of dishonorable behavior), he remains admirable for his struggle against cancer.

Things that puzzle me:

1) Although I tend to agree, as I've noted above, that most of the riders in the peloton dope and/or doped, I wonder if the "level playing field" argument really works. I mean, yes, they all (for some value of "all") doped and Lance came out on top. But I still wonder if maybe Lance's greatest gift was a body that made the most of EPO or other PEDs. What if, in other words, he was a great cyclist who became the greatest cyclist of his era because his body chemistry reacted uniquely with and made the most of the same chemicals that other riders put into their bodies? What if the TdF wasn't really a test of the best bike rider but the rider whose physiology made the most of the best PEDs available at the time?

I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but it just seems quite likely to me that different bodies react differently to PEDs. Maybe EPO worked wonders for Lance, giving him that tiny edge, and it only worked really well for his competition, leaving them a few seconds behind him. Or maybe not.

2) I'm also puzzled about where my favorite cycling socks have gone. They're ZOICs, and they're really light and comfy, and I can't find them. It's a bit of a mystery, really, and it's bumming me out. Come to think of it, I care more about their whereabouts than about any of the other issues above.

[Charles M]

kinda hard for lance, inc to trash george as they have floyd and tyler.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366749n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel



Floyd and Tyler trashed Floyd and Tyler...

George is another story.

[BillG]

Things I'm nearly certain of....

I agree with everything you say, and wish you well finding your socks. That does sound like a very serious matter.

One thing though. Don't discount the variable quality of doping programs. Lance clearly had the best of the best. This is by no means true of all cyclists who dope. There are programs, and then there are PROGRAMS.

[akelman]

Don't discount the variable quality of doping programs. Lance clearly had the best of the best. This is by no means true of all cyclists who dope. There are programs, and then there are PROGRAMS.

This is a great point. The Tour might have become a measure not of the best rider but of the body best able to make the most of the best PEDs and also of the team with the best PED program. Which, again, suggests that the "it was a level playing field; they were all dopers and he was the best among them" argument isn't really all that persuasive.

Also, thanks for commiserating about the socks. I really am at wits' end.

[rugbysecondrow]

This is a great point. The Tour might have become a measure not of the best rider but of the body best able to make the most of the best PEDs and also of the team with the best PED program. Which, again, suggests that the "it was a level playing field; they were all dopers and he was the best among them" argument isn't really all that persuasive.

Also, thanks for commiserating about the socks. I really am at wits' end.

As an aside, most sports are like this, Yankees Vs Royals, NASCAR team inequities, Golf pros...etc, cycling is no different. I would add that this distraction likely relates to all forms of preparation, support, training, facilities, and performance drug plans.

[kyledmil]

"His philanthropy far outweighs any of the above. Is he motivated by ego? Is he self-aggrandizing? Yes, it seems so, but I don't really care. He's helped thousands upon thousands upon thousands of suffering people. And so, even if he acted without honor on the bike (and I'm not sure that doping when everyone around him was doping was all that dishonorable), even if he damaged the reputations of people whom he once called his friends (this, without any question, is the very definition of dishonorable behavior), he remains admirable for his struggle against cancer."


So he can destroy lives, lie, cheat........but raising money for cancer negates all of these? Hmmmm....what other crimes can I commit and get away with as long as I do charity work? Slippery slope don't you think?

[akelman]

So he can destroy lives, lie, cheat........but raising money for cancer negates all of these? Hmmmm....what other crimes can I commit and get away with as long as I do charity work? Slippery slope don't you think?

"Negates"? Wait, did I say that? Hold on a second while I take a look... Nope, it turns out I didn't say that. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but I've been around the block on the internet a few times, and I get antsy when people start putting words in my mouth.

As for whether certain crimes are redeemable by good works, I don't know. That's a pretty interesting question, actually. But before I think too much more about that, I wonder, are you really upset with Lance because of his alleged criminal activities?

[akelman]

As an aside, most sports are like this, Yankees Vs Royals, NASCAR team inequities, Golf pros...etc, cycling is no different. I would add that this distraction likely relates to all forms of preparation, support, training, facilities, and performance drug plans.

Again, this is a great point. We (well, maybe just I) sometimes tend to think of these guys as individual actors, lone gunmen facing off against the competition in a kind of showdown: the time trial, the mountain summit, the sprint finish. And the theatrics at the end of stages, when they raise their arms in the air and then climb the podium alone, contribute to the misconception. But as you say, they're very much part of teams that have wildly different levels of organization, expertise, and resources.

[Rueda Tropical]

4) His philanthropy far outweighs any of the above.

His philanthropy has nothing to do with any of the above. Bernie Maddoff gave $1million to Lymphoma Research. That had no bearing one way or another on his illegal activities or his prosecution for same. If Armstrong ran an illegal drug ring, committed fraud and cheated his way to success in the business of pro sports it's a separate issue from whether or not he was a good dad, a generous philanthropist or what ever else he might have done that did not involve cheating and lying in his business/profession.

[akelman]

His philanthropy has nothing to do with any of the above. Bernie Maddoff gave $1million to Lymphoma Research. That had no bearing one way or another on his illegal activities or his prosecution for same. If Armstrong ran an illegal drug ring, committed fraud and cheated his way to success in the business of pro sports it's a separate issue from whether or not he was a good dad, a generous philanthropist or what ever else he might have done that did not involve cheating and lying in his business/profession.

With respect, I think you're wrong in at least two ways. First, Lance's philanthropy has everything to do with his cycling exploits. Frankly, how you can say otherwise passes understanding. 1) He was a great rider. 2) He got cancer. 3) He came back. 4) He then became the best rider in the world. It was as he accomplished 4 that he began devoting himself to Livestrong, a foundation and endeavor that wouldn't have been nearly as big, nearly as successful, nearly as inspirational had he not become arguably the best rider in the world. I mean, it would have been amazing had he returned to the pro peloton after nearly losing his life to cancer. But he didn't just return, he dominated the peloton at the biggest event on the calendar. And second, because of the above, the Madoff analogy doesn't work. Madoff gave away some of his vast, personal fortune, sure. But he didn't use his platform as one of the most famous athletes in the world to inspire thousands upon thousands of people and raise millions upon millions of dollars for a very good cause. Moreover, if you think Lance's crimes are on par with Madoff's, I don't know what to say.

Also, there's this: I tend to think that people should be judged based on the sum of all of their actions throughout their lives. Armstrong, for his part, was and is a big jerk: an egomaniac, a lousy family man, a world-historically bad friend, etc. He was also one of the great cyclists of his day. And then, finally, he was and maybe still is an extraordinarily committed -- at least among athletes -- philanthropist, who seemingly devoted and devotes himself to a cause with the same determination that made him great on the bike. Based on your calculation, he gets no credit for his good works. Based on mine, his good works outweigh his misdeeds (in my eyes). That's not to say I ignore his misdeeds or that that I think he's a hero. Honestly, I never liked him much (though I admired him as a cyclist). And I'm too old for heroes. But I think he parlayed his athletic success into something bigger and more important than that: trying to get rid of a dreadful disease and to inspire the people who were and still are struggling to survive that terrible illness.

[Rueda Tropical]

Also, there's this: I tend to think that people should be judged based on the sum of all of their actions throughout their lives.

Whether he is guilty of whatever he might be charged with has nothing to do with the "sum of his actions" in life. Whether his intentions were totally selfless with his charitable work or it was all a part of building a business that could bring more wealth and acclaim to the Armstrong brand or it was a bit of both has nothing to do with his possibly illegal and or unethical activities in pro racing.

If you want to pass judgement on his character, the sum total of his actions might be important to you, but I'm interested in LA only in so far as pro cycling is concerned. It looks to me like he was a cheat and a liar who was central in making the sport of pro racing much worse (rather then better) thanks to his influence and presence. His sporting accomplishments were achieved by fraudulent and illegal means.

I'll let someone else sort out what he did or did not do to help cancer victims and sell bicycles. The Feds so far as I know are not investigating his activities in those areas.

The "everyone did it" so it's OK defense or he "helped cancer victims" so it's OK defense don't really hold any water when it comes to his cheating and possible illegal activities. You cheat, you get caught, you pay the penalty. Nothing complicated about that.

[slowandsteady]

...

2) I'm also puzzled about where my favorite cycling socks have gone. They're ZOICs, and they're really light and comfy, and I can't find them. It's a bit of a mystery, really, and it's bumming me out. Come to think of it, I care more about their whereabouts than about any of the other issues above.

Thank goodness someone else is in the same boat as I am these days...where are those damn sox??!?!?! May be out getting a yarn infusion :)

[rugbysecondrow]

Whether he is guilty of whatever he might be charged with has nothing to do with the "sum of his actions" in life. Whether his intentions were totally selfless with his charitable work or it was all a part of building a business that could bring more wealth and acclaim to the Armstrong brand or it was a bit of both has nothing to do with his possibly illegal and or unethical activities in pro racing.

If you want to pass judgement on his character, the sum total of his actions might be important to you, but I'm interested in LA only in so far as pro cycling is concerned. It looks to me like he was a cheat and a liar who was central in making the sport of pro racing much worse (rather then better) thanks to his influence and presence. His sporting accomplishments were achieved by fraudulent and illegal means.

I'll let someone else sort out what he did or did not do to help cancer victims and sell bicycles. The Feds so far as I know are not investigating his activities in those areas.

The "everyone did it" so it's OK defense or he "helped cancer victims" so it's OK defense don't really hold any water when it comes to his cheating and possible illegal activities. You cheat, you get caught, you pay the penalty. Nothing complicated about that.

Ah, now this is where we are at. He has not been caught by any test that was devised and administered at the time he was racing. So, he wasn't caught for cheating then, but folks are wanting to go back over a decade to sort this out. When is enough enough? Will anybody ever be satisfied with any outcome other than the one they personally want?

[Rueda Tropical]

Ah, now this is where we are at. He has not been caught by any test that was devised and administered at the time he was racing. So, he wasn't caught for cheating then, but folks are wanting to go back over a decade to sort this out.

Getting away with it when you did it doesn't get you a pass.

I don't know why the Feds decided this was worth going after now. Maybe some combo of the amount of money involved, a federal agency, Armstrong's return, Floyd spilling the beans and they saw a high profile case that could be successfully prosecuted. Folks in general or Armstrong haters in particular had nothing to do with the decision to investigate LA.

However this does apply to today. The corruption of the Armstrong era permeates all aspects of pro cycling and I imagine the corruption of the current UCI will be exposed in all it's putrid glory when this thing goes to trial. This will most definitely impact pro cycling today and probably other sports as well and if it brings down the UCI all the better.

[Lifelover]

Yeah - and honestly in cycling cheating has been there from day one. I don't care one way or the other - it is like a concert - I go to watch and enjoy. HOWEVER once law is involved, do not ***** on the legal system - it all we have. Integrity and the legal system. Lie and you cheat both. The legal system needs to remain as un-corrupt as we can keep it... otherwise we have a system for 2 kinds of people - those in/with power, and the rest of us. It has to be unbiased as possible and fair to all.

I could care less if you dope, paint your house pink, ride campy or (gasp) shimano... but if you lie under oath - F-U!


No question with what you say above. If you are under oath within the system you sure as hell better tell the truth. If not than suck it up and take the punishment like a man.

I just question why these people are under oath in the first place. It is fair to question the Grand Jury process and ask if it is reasonable for these people be questioned in the first place.

The process should be instituted for the good of the general public. I don't see where the general public benefits from this or even any of the baseball BS.

If is proven that Lance lied under oath than burn him at the stake.

Has Lance testified under oath that he never took PEDs? This whole mess has dragged out so long I don't remember.

[rugbysecondrow]

Getting away with it when you did it doesn't get you a pass.

I don't know why the Feds decided this was worth going after now. Maybe some combo of the amount of money involved, a federal agency, Armstrong's return, Floyd spilling the beans and they saw a high profile case that could be successfully prosecuted. Folks in general or Armstrong haters in particular had nothing to do with the decision to investigate LA.

However this does apply to today. The corruption of the Armstrong era permeates all aspects of pro cycling and I imagine the corruption of the current UCI will be exposed in all it's putrid glory when this thing goes to trial. This will most definitely impact pro cycling today and probably other sports as well and if it brings down the UCI all the better.


When is it enough though? At what point folks be be satisfied that the process occurred, it may or may not have net their desired result, but it is time to move on? There have been tests, inquiries, investigations etc. At what put, or I should ask, is there a point where folks move on?

[oldpotatoe]

With respect, I think you're wrong in at least two ways. First, Lance's philanthropy has everything to do with his cycling exploits. Frankly, how you can say otherwise passes understanding. 1) He was a great rider. 2) He got cancer. 3) He came back. 4) He then became the best rider in the world. It was as he accomplished 4 that he began devoting himself to Livestrong, a foundation and endeavor that wouldn't have been nearly as big, nearly as successful, nearly as inspirational had he not become arguably the best rider in the world. I mean, it would have been amazing had he returned to the pro peloton after nearly losing his life to cancer. But he didn't just return, he dominated the peloton at the biggest event on the calendar. And second, because of the above, the Madoff analogy doesn't work. Madoff gave away some of his vast, personal fortune, sure. But he didn't use his platform as one of the most famous athletes in the world to inspire thousands upon thousands of people and raise millions upon millions of dollars for a very good cause. Moreover, if you think Lance's crimes are on par with Madoff's, I don't know what to say.

Also, there's this: I tend to think that people should be judged based on the sum of all of their actions throughout their lives. Armstrong, for his part, was and is a big jerk: an egomaniac, a lousy family man, a world-historically bad friend, etc. He was also one of the great cyclists of his day. And then, finally, he was and maybe still is an extraordinarily committed -- at least among athletes -- philanthropist, who seemingly devoted and devotes himself to a cause with the same determination that made him great on the bike. Based on your calculation, he gets no credit for his good works. Based on mine, his good works outweigh his misdeeds (in my eyes). That's not to say I ignore his misdeeds or that that I think he's a hero. Honestly, I never liked him much (though I admired him as a cyclist). And I'm too old for heroes. But I think he parlayed his athletic success into something bigger and more important than that: trying to get rid of a dreadful disease and to inspire the people who were and still are struggling to survive that terrible illness.

French bridge builder 'joke'...

[Rueda Tropical]

When is it enough though? At what point folks be be satisfied that the process occurred, it may or may not have net their desired result, but it is time to move on? There have been tests, inquiries, investigations etc. At what put, or I should ask, is there a point where folks move on?

Novitzky and the Feds will move on when the investigation is complete. At which point they are likely to prosecute Armstrong if there is not a plea deal.

This did not have to happen. LA got away with cheating his way to more TdF wins then any cyclist in history, he had the admiration of millions but that wasn't enough. He had to come back for more. He could have bought Floyd off for pennies compared to what this will cost him. Mob guys always take care of their partners in crime who take the fall (or eliminate them which probably was not an option for Lance). He has no one but himself to blame. He could have gotten away with it but a mixture of hubris and arrogance must have led him to believe he was untouchable.

[cmg]

what fallout? Radio shack is going to win at Tour of california. their going to the tour de france, so the sponsors goals are going to be met. Livestrong, those involved with this organization don't care about Armstrongs carreer history. put in another figure head and go on, it does good work. there's no physical evidence only conjecture, he never failed a drug test. any legal action is years away. yea, some former team mates said thay saw him take performance enhancing drugs........so what? he's gotten away with it. maybe he's charlie sheen's missing brother. winning, with tiger blood.

[BCS]

This is tragic. Now the Feds are going to have to divert manpower from investigating steroid use in MLB.

I personally don't care if they dope or not. Leave it to the governing bodies of the respective sports to deal with this crap. The whole perjury/lying to congress angle of prosecution also irks me. The athletes should never have had to appear before congress in the first place. I did not vote for my politicians to listen to testimony about this BS. Bigger fish to fry

[sbparker31]

Things that puzzle me:

2) I'm also puzzled about where my favorite cycling socks have gone. They're ZOICs, and they're really light and comfy, and I can't find them. It's a bit of a mystery, really, and it's bumming me out. Come to think of it, I care more about their whereabouts than about any of the other issues above.

I was puzzled by the exact same thing recently. After many years of experimenting to get the perfect sock, I hit on some double layer running socks from REI. They are fairly thin, and they have two layers, so they wick sweat well and the layers kind of "move" so that there is no friction and your feet stay cool. Anyway, I bought like ten pairs of these. Over time, I had nine, then eight, then seven, then NO pairs. ***? So one day inspiration struck, and I looked in my daughter's sock drawer, and there they were! She liked them too!

Anyway, with regard to Lance -- It's all started to play out a lot like the Barry Bonds drama. The only way his close confident Greg Anderson avoided bringing down Barry was by sitting in Jail on a contempt order. It always confounded me that he was willing to do this for Barry, who much like Lance, comes off as a lying, egotistical, arrogant jerk. I get the feeling that Hincapie is not likely to sacrifice himself like Anderson did, so Lance is likely going to suffer the consequences now. And it really didn't help out Barry in the end -- he still got convicted (albeit of reduced charges)

[edmoses]

If is proven that Lance lied under oath than burn him at the stake.

Has Lance testified under oath that he never took PEDs? This whole mess has dragged out so long I don't remember.

There is a story in todays Sunday Times that they are looking at this and will possibly appeal the case where Armstrong sued them (& Walsh) for accusing him of taking drugs. While he did not stand up in court himself, he did brief the high paid help who were there on his behalf. There is also the testimony from the SCA trial that needs to be reviewed if this keeps going in the same direction.

Ed

[jpw]

There are other issues in play here. The bicycle industry wants to topple the UCI and take over the running of the sport for its own commercial benefit. If Armstrong gets caught between a rock and a hard place, and rumors of failed tests and UCI complicity prove to be accurate, he might then enter into an agreement to name names in return for immunity from prosecution.

Could the prosecutor subpoena LA's medical records and read the consultation notes? When a disease like cancer turns up the patient I expect would normally reveal everything to his doctor for the best possible treatment strategy.

[e-RICHIE]

There are other issues in play here. The bicycle industry wants to topple the UCI and take over the running of the sport for its own commercial benefit.
heh atmo!
what's the back story on this?

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:o :o :o
:D :D :cool:

[Pete Serotta]

:help: The past is the past.

I would think the FBI and FEDs would be more helpful to the economy if they focused more on the banks :beer:

What did or did not happen is history in sports and Lance has done lots for the focus on cancer and the survivors. There are many who have/had cancer and any publicity, help, or financial assist is always needed. R&D is the future and it has come a long way.

Thanks

[Elefantino]

If the investigation helps to end doping, it's worth in IMNSHO.

[indyrider]

When is it enough though?


When the truth is revealed...

[jpw]

heh atmo!
what's the back story on this?

ps

arrange disorder

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:o :o :o
:D :D :cool:


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-ramping-up-pressure-on-teams-over-breakaway-league

14 teams wouldn't plan a breakaway without the backing of the industry. In reality the teams are the chess pieces in a game between the UCI and the industry. The media industry is the third big player, and they side with whomever will make them more money. I don't think that's the UCI.

ASO (media) own the TdF. Gazzetta (media) owns the Giro.

[e-RICHIE]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-ramping-up-pressure-on-teams-over-breakaway-league

14 teams wouldn't plan a breakaway without the backing of the industry.
are you projecting, or do you know this?
it's the first i've heard of it atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:) :) :)
:) :) :)
:( :o :D

[jpw]

are you projecting, or do you know this?
it's the first i've heard of it atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:) :) :)
:) :) :)
:( :o :D

I'm joining the dots, but the big picture is there to be seen if one looks hard enough.

Riders, races, media, and industry want to make more money.

The E'quipe (ASO) drug list leak last week was another attack on the UCI.

[rugbysecondrow]

When the truth is revealed...


Again, by who's definition and to who's satisfactions. There have been investigations, testings and other inquiries, at what point will there be an investigation that has results that satisfy? In all likelihood, no investigation that results in a finding contrary to one personal opinion will be accepted. Again, then what is the point?

Vindication, vilification or validation, or just a big ole glass of hate-or-ade?

[e-RICHIE]

I'm joining the dots, but the big picture is there to be seen if one looks hard enough.

Riders, races, media, and industry want to make more money.

The E'quipe (ASO) drug list leak last week was another attack on the UCI.


i'll wait until the industry part of the equation is in the news too atmo.
until then, i see it as johan and jonathan having their knickers in a twist.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:o :( :mad:
:rolleyes: :) :cool:

[Rueda Tropical]

Again, by who's definition and to who's satisfactions. There have been investigations, testings and other inquiries, at what point will there be an investigation that has results that satisfy? In all likelihood, no investigation that results in a finding contrary to one personal opinion will be accepted. Again, then what is the point?

Vindication, vilification or validation, or just a big ole glass of hate-or-ade?

We have laws. Prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke the law. End of story. Not a popularity contest. Not up to the people who hate you or love you. Investigations don't end when fans or the press lose interest, they end when the investigation is complete and the case goes to trial or doesn't. So far as I know this is the first time in a long time the US Feds have investigated anything related to cycling.

[rugbysecondrow]

We have laws. Prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke the law. End of story. Not a popularity contest. Not up to the people who hate you or love you. Investigations don't end when fans or the press lose interest, they end when the investigation is complete and the case goes to trial or doesn't. So far as I know this is the first time in a long time the US Feds have investigated anything related to cycling.
Sure, the first time the US Feds investigated but certainly not the first investigation. Again, if this investigation does not net LA, is that enough?

[kyledmil]

"Again, then what is the point?"



truth

[Rueda Tropical]

Sure, the first time the US Feds investigated but certainly not the first investigation. Again, if this investigation does not net LA, is that enough?

Seeing as how the regulatory authorities may have been bribed previous "investigations" don't count. There was a lot more positive and adulatory press then negative press so he should have no gripes about the press either. You make it sound like the guy has been persecuted. Multi-Millions of dollars, Hollywood starlets and entourage, Palmares, millions of adoring fans - if thats persecution, I want to get persecuted to.

I think you can rest assured that if the Feds turn up nothing that will hold up in court Armstrong will be able to ride off into the sunset unmolested by any further investigations. I would not count on him getting off though:
This case isn't like Bonds and Clemens," a source familiar with the case said to AP – the latter facing trial for perjury following the alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. "Those were about lying. This is about corruption to the core."

[Rueda Tropical]

And this is not about rehashing something that happened in the 90's:

Armstrong's spokesman Mark Fabiani responded, "Lance has not had a professional relationship with Dr. Ferrari since 2004, but he remains friends with the doctor's family and sees them every once in a while. Lance last saw Dr. Ferrari about a year ago."

However, another facet of the investigation centres around the search of Armstrong's teammate Yaroslav Popovych, whose residence was searched last November, allegedly turning up evidence of a relationship between Ferrari and the RadioShack team.

The UCI which may have been bribed is also still operational last time I checked. And lots of current riders at the highest level are potentially involved like Contador who rode for Bruyneel and presumably benefited from his "training program". Lance maybe the biggest fish, but the system he perfected is still in place in the peloton as are many of the players.

[Lifelover]

Has LA ever lied while under oath?

We all know he took PEDs, but so have almost every other professional athlete in the last 30 years.

I Fn hope that the Feds are looking to accomplish more than finding the "Truth".

[rugbysecondrow]

Seeing as how the regulatory authorities may have been bribed previous "investigations" don't count. There was a lot more positive and adulatory press then negative press so he should have no gripes about the press either. You make it sound like the guy has been persecuted. Multi-Millions of dollars, Hollywood starlets and entourage, Palmares, millions of adoring fans - if thats persecution, I want to get persecuted to.

I think you can rest assured that if the Feds turn up nothing that will hold up in court Armstrong will be able to ride off into the sunset unmolested by any further investigations. I would not count on him getting off though:

I don't think I am making it sound like anything, just trying ask questions to drill down to what your actual point is.

I don't think I am wrong when I say that it seems you have a hard on for Lance. No matter the process that takes place, it seems you will invalidate it if the results are not what you desire. I get that, but you have to honestly acknowledge this bias you have. Frankly, it seems you already think you know the truth so this bias drives you not for truth and betterment but rather guilt and punishment.

I understand the position, the desire for punishment, I just disagree with it here. People use Bonds, McGuire and Sosa in MLB as an example, but baseball fans feel comfortable that they likely cheated. No criminal investigation was necessary and most MLB fans would think it was fruitless. Roger Clemens is another example. Is there really a court proceeding that is going to impact the opinions that people have? Nope.

[davidlee]

If this leaked report of Big George fessing up and putting his hand in the cookie jar turns out to be fact, I'm really curious exactly when he decided to STOP using EPO ,and if he did stop, what made him if the tests are so beatable ? One difference between him and Flandis/Tyler is that they are both finished while he still wishes to race for a few more years. Is he still doping while competing? Which of his past/present results are doped? All of them?
Hmmmmm

[Grant McLean]

When is it enough though? At what point folks be be satisfied that the process occurred, it may or may not have net their desired result, but it is time to move on? There have been tests, inquiries, investigations etc. At what put, or I should ask, is there a point where folks move on?

Pretty simple for me. Lance just has to tell the truth, and many
will forgive him. Until then, he's just living and benefitting from
the same denials as everyone else who lied to cover it all up,
and stop attacking and punishing the ones who tell the truth.

That's the difference between the WWF and pro cycling.
The wrestlers aren't hypocrites.

-g

[Rueda Tropical]

I don't think I am wrong when I say that it seems you have a hard on for Lance. No matter the process that takes place, it seems you will invalidate it if the results are not what you desire.

I'm sure Novitzky is not interested in my opinion of his case.

I loved watching Contador go up Etna and I thought it was thrilling watching Armstrong back in the day. I never wore a yellow bracelet but I contributed to his Livestrong foundation. But I don't have to believe the fairy tale that they are racing clean. Doesn't make me a Contador or Lance hater (I actually like Contador, I liked Lance until his comeback). I do hate the state that Cycling is in though and would be happy to see anything happen that will clear out some of the rot. I bet the majority of pro's wish they did not have to make the choice between a career in cycling and doping.

You are doing a lot of projecting. Now that Hincapie has spilled the beans and from everything that has been written you don't have to be a Lance hater to read the writing on the wall. You would have to be in absolute delusional denial. I don't give a crap one way or the other what happens to Lance but I do hope the outcome improves pro cycling.

I am enjoying the show though. He was entertaining on the way up and I bet he will be just as entertaining on the way down.

[e-RICHIE]

I'm sure Novitzky is not interested in my opinion of his case.

I loved watching Contador go up Etna and I thought it was thrilling watching Armstrong back in the day. I never wore a yellow bracelet but I contributed to his Livestrong foundation. But I don't have to believe the fairy tale that they are racing clean. Doesn't make me a Contador or Lance hater (I actually like Contador, I liked Lance until his comeback). I do hate the state that Cycling is in though and would be happy to see anything happen that will clear out some of the rot. I bet the majority of pro's wish they did not have to make the choice between a career in cycling and doping.

You are doing a lot of projecting. Now that Hincapie has spilled the beans and from everything that has been written you don't have to be a Lance hater to read the writing on the wall. You would have to be in absolute delusional denial. I don't give a crap one way or the other what happens to Lance but I do hope the outcome improves pro cycling.

I am enjoying the show though. He was entertaining on the way up and I bet he will be just as entertaining on the way down.


[X] like ^ atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :o :(
:D :( :o
:) :rolleyes: :eek:

[Vientomas]

This is how I view the situation:

Professional athlete gets cancer.

Athlete “beats” cancer.

Athlete returns to the professional ranks and competes at a higher level than before cancer.

Athlete shouts from the highest mountains that he “beat” cancer and won the most difficult athletic event of his field “clean”.

Athlete parleys his “clean” success into a money making operation from which he directly benefits, including but not limited to:

$5,000,000.00 bonus.

Corporate and government sponsorship.

Livestrong.org

Livestrong.com

Other athletes report that drugs were used on a systematic basis to enhance the athlete's performance and that the athlete was, in fact, not “clean”.

Investigation into the criminal activity is initiated.

If the financial gains the athlete made were the result of his representations that his athletic success was achieved “clean”, and in fact the athlete was not “clean”, then a fraud has been committed on a rather large scale. The fact that fraud occurred within the context of a sport does not diminish the need to investigate the alleged criminal activity. The alleged criminal activity is the main event in terms of the investigation. The sporting aspect, and any punishment that might be taken by the sport’s governing body, is an aside.

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm sure Novitzky is not interested in my opinion of his case.

I loved watching Contador go up Etna and I thought it was thrilling watching Armstrong back in the day. I never wore a yellow bracelet but I contributed to his Livestrong foundation. But I don't have to believe the fairy tale that they are racing clean. Doesn't make me a Contador or Lance hater (I actually like Contador, I liked Lance until his comeback). I do hate the state that Cycling is in though and would be happy to see anything happen that will clear out some of the rot. I bet the majority of pro's wish they did not have to make the choice between a career in cycling and doping.

You are doing a lot of projecting. Now that Hincapie has spilled the beans and from everything that has been written you don't have to be a Lance hater to read the writing on the wall. You would have to be in absolute delusional denial. I don't give a crap one way or the other what happens to Lance but I do hope the outcome improves pro cycling.

I am enjoying the show though. He was entertaining on the way up and I bet he will be just as entertaining on the way down.
:rolleyes:

Every LA thread has you as the Lance hating responder, why back off now and "just enjoy the show"?. I have no problem if you do or don't hate, like or love the man, but to say you don't care what happens to Lance doesn't reconcile with your body of work.

I agree with what you said about doping and the pro cyclists. It is a shame that they choose to cheat, but it is a choice. They choose to participate in the sport, they choose to continue the pursuit of success in the sport. It is a shame, but it is shame they bring on themselves. I am not certain to what degree, if any, sport can be cleaned up. So long as there is big money and success to be had, people will search for advantages that might make the difference, doping and its peripherals are part of that.

[Dekonick]

This is tragic. Now the Feds are going to have to divert manpower from investigating steroid use in MLB.

I personally don't care if they dope or not. Leave it to the governing bodies of the respective sports to deal with this crap. The whole perjury/lying to congress angle of prosecution also irks me. The athletes should never have had to appear before congress in the first place. I did not vote for my politicians to listen to testimony about this BS. Bigger fish to fry

Oh, I agree 100% - a total waste of federal resources... and a witch hunt. The matter remains : lie under oath, suffer the full wrath of the system. The system depends on truth.

[Rueda Tropical]

:rolleyes:

Every LA thread has you as the Lance hating responder, why back off now and "just enjoy the show"?. I have no problem if you do or don't hate, like or love the man, but to say you don't care what happens to Lance doesn't reconcile with your body of work.

Spare me the psychoanalysis about someone you don't know and tell me what I have stated about this subject that is false or not correct.

I guess saying the evidence is clear Lance doped = Lance Hater = you want to see Lance taken down.

Do I like to see cheaters get caught? yes. Do you? Do you believe Lance doped? If yes does that make you a Lance hater? Why exactly after the cheating has been exposed and hopefully cleaned up should I care what happens to Lance? He won't be racing again either way.

If Bruyneel and those who rode for him are cheats do you think they should be allowed to continue to cheat and influence the sport? Does that make you a Lance hater? Or a Contador hater? or a JB hater.

[rugbysecondrow]

Spare me the psychoanalysis about someone you don't know and tell me what I have stated about this subject that is false or not correct.


My man, the point is that you have said nothing of fact to respond to. Lots of "Ifs", "may have", "maybe", "might" "potential" and other vague statements which articulate nothing except your anti Lance posturing. I am not sure if there is some oracle you can source, or maybe you drink beers with a cycling pontiff who can fill you in on the intricacies here. If that is the case, then I apologize. Otherwise, it seems we are in the same place regarding the well of knowledge...it is actually a wading pool (filled with kiddie piss right now). Information, both the lack of and the misuse of it, are the point of these threads. All of us seem to be equals in that respect.

[Rueda Tropical]

My man, the point is that you have said nothing of fact to respond to. Lots of "Ifs", "may have", "maybe", "might" "potential" and other vague statements which articulate nothing except your anti Lance posturing.

You can call all this anti-Lance posturing if it makes you feel better. I think most reasonable people will agree that we are beyond the ifs and mights at this point. You go right ahead and believe that recognizing reality is somehow anti-Lance posturing. You can believe that Hincapie didn't implicate Armstrong under oath for now since he didn't verify or deny that he did. Why he would not issue an absolute and strong denial if it didn't happen is beyond me. Once the indictments and testimony come out the speculation will be over.

Let's agree to disagree and revisit this subject then.

[gemship]

Oh, I agree 100% - a total waste of federal resources... and a witch hunt. The matter remains : lie under oath, suffer the full wrath of the system. The system depends on truth.


Thank you for replying to this quote by BCS. I've been following the thread, it's interesting on so many levels but I must say I couldn't of said it better myself.
A special thanks to BCS, he "gets it".

"Originally Posted by BCS
This is tragic. Now the Feds are going to have to divert manpower from investigating steroid use in MLB.

I personally don't care if they dope or not. Leave it to the governing bodies of the respective sports to deal with this crap. The whole perjury/lying to congress angle of prosecution also irks me. The athletes should never have had to appear before congress in the first place. I did not vote for my politicians to listen to testimony about this BS. Bigger fish to fry"



P.S. Rugby, gets it too, you did well dude. Hey this thread was tailored for the Lance haters. Time to go for a ride and I'll look forward to that 60 minutes interview. :o

[BCS]

This is how I view the situation:

Professional athlete gets cancer.

Athlete “beats” cancer.

Athlete returns to the professional ranks and competes at a higher level than before cancer.

Athlete shouts from the highest mountains that he “beat” cancer and won the most difficult athletic event of his field “clean”.

Athlete parleys his “clean” success into a money making operation from which he directly benefits, including but not limited to:

$5,000,000.00 bonus.

Corporate and government sponsorship.

Livestrong.org

Livestrong.com

Other athletes report that drugs were used on a systematic basis to enhance the athlete's performance and that the athlete was, in fact, not “clean”.

Investigation into the criminal activity is initiated.

If the financial gains the athlete made were the result of his representations that his athletic success was achieved “clean”, and in fact the athlete was not “clean”, then a fraud has been committed on a rather large scale. The fact that fraud occurred within the context of a sport does not diminish the need to investigate the alleged criminal activity. The alleged criminal activity is the main event in terms of the investigation. The sporting aspect, and any punishment that might be taken by the sport’s governing body, is an aside.

An aside?? I totally disagree. Forget about being a LA lover or hater for a moment and think about this rationally.
Maybe I am too much of a libertarian but do you really think that our legal system should devote one iota of energy into investigating whether a bunch of lycra clad anorexics cheated. Talk to the average non-cyclist (which is like 5.99 billion people) and the sound of the collective "who gives a fcuk" will be deafening.

Here's a really dumb analogy:
Arnold Schwarznegger used steroids
Became popular in movies due to success derived from "illegal activity"
Became fabulously wealthy and improbably married into the Kennedy family, became the Governator, etc.

Do we launch an investigation?
Should he forfeit money made from The Terminator?

How about NFL teams videotaping other teams?
Baseball teams steal signs-lets convene the grand jury

Athletes always will look to get an advantage, legal or otherwise. Personally, I don't care what happens to any of these guys, good or bad. Neither should the government.

[rugbysecondrow]

CRACK!
That ball is hit hard, it has the distance, it could be, it might.....THAT BALL IS OUT OF HERE! HOME RUN!!!!!



An aside?? I totally disagree. Forget about being a LA lover or hater for a moment and think about this rationally.
Maybe I am too much of a libertarian but do you really think that our legal system should devote one iota of energy into investigating whether a bunch of lycra clad anorexics cheated. Talk to the average non-cyclist (which is like 5.99 billion people) and the sound of the collective "who gives a fcuk" will be deafening.

Here's a really dumb analogy:
Arnold Schwarznegger used steroids
Became popular in movies due to success derived from "illegal activity"
Became fabulously wealthy and improbably married into the Kennedy family, became the Governator, etc.

Do we launch an investigation?
Should he forfeit money made from The Terminator?

How about NFL teams videotaping other teams?
Baseball teams steal signs-lets convene the grand jury

Athletes always will look to get an advantage, legal or otherwise. Personally, I don't care what happens to any of these guys, good or bad. Neither should the government.

[Frankwurst]

An aside?? I totally disagree. Forget about being a LA lover or hater for a moment and think about this rationally.
Maybe I am too much of a libertarian but do you really think that our legal system should devote one iota of energy into investigating whether a bunch of lycra clad anorexics cheated. Talk to the average non-cyclist (which is like 5.99 billion people) and the sound of the collective "who gives a fcuk" will be deafening.

Here's a really dumb analogy:
Arnold Schwarznegger used steroids
Became popular in movies due to success derived from "illegal activity"
Became fabulously wealthy and improbably married into the Kennedy family, became the Governator, etc.

Do we launch an investigation?
Should he forfeit money made from The Terminator?

How about NFL teams videotaping other teams?
Baseball teams steal signs-lets convene the grand jury

Athletes always will look to get an advantage, legal or otherwise. Personally, I don't care what happens to any of these guys, good or bad. Neither should the government.

Well put. I couldn't agree more. :hello: :beer:

[Vientomas]

An aside?? I totally disagree. Forget about being a LA lover or hater for a moment and think about this rationally.
Maybe I am too much of a libertarian but do you really think that our legal system should devote one iota of energy into investigating whether a bunch of lycra clad anorexics cheated. Talk to the average non-cyclist (which is like 5.99 billion people) and the sound of the collective "who gives a fcuk" will be deafening.

Here's a really dumb analogy:
Arnold Schwarznegger used steroids
Became popular in movies due to success derived from "illegal activity"
Became fabulously wealthy and improbably married into the Kennedy family, became the Governator, etc.

Do we launch an investigation?
Should he forfeit money made from The Terminator?

How about NFL teams videotaping other teams?
Baseball teams steal signs-lets convene the grand jury

Athletes always will look to get an advantage, legal or otherwise. Personally, I don't care what happens to any of these guys, good or bad. Neither should the government.

Did Arnold get you to invest money in his movies by telling you that his physique was all natural and not the result of steroid use?

The difference is that Lance built his empire on the lie that he achieved his success without the use of drugs. Did Arnold ever say that?

You seem to be missing my point that this is about financial fraud, not sporting fraud.

Foul ball at best.

[BCS]

Did Arnold get you to invest money in his movies by telling you that his physique was all natural and not the result of steroid use?

The difference is that Lance built his empire on the lie that he achieved his success without the use of drugs. Did Arnold ever say that?

You seem to be missing my point that this is about financial fraud, not sporting fraud.

Foul ball at best.
The point is not missed. His empire was built because he was the best cyclist/doper (alleged) among other cyclist/dopers. You know who I think should be pissed: companies like Giant. Maybe Trek wouldn't have sold as many bikes if Jan had won a few more T de Fs. Ooops, he doped too.

Where's the corporate fraud? I gave his foundation some money instead of all of it to Susan G. Komen or the American Cancer Society. Are those organizations complaining? Other than the cycling forums, UCI and French tabloids no one cares. He is not Madoff or Milken.
Strip him of all his titles. Burn your yellow bracelet. And then let it go.

[Lifelover]

When does this mean we have to all hate on Big George.

No question if what he and Tyler are saying is true than he doped as well.

Has he admitted doping? If not does that make him a awful, lying, cheating, thief with a successful clothing brand predicated on dishonesty?

Hopefully hating on Big George won't be as much fun and wont get any traction.

[Pete Serotta]

after so many 105 posts we are in chapter 2. It is a pretty good note but it is too long!

Pete