# 10 Random Thoughts on Lance Armstrong and Doping



## TallCoolOne (Jan 18, 2010)

Thought #

1. I have run 3 half marathons, bought a road bike, and finished Ride Across Indiana (160 mile 1 day ride from western border to eastern border of Indiana) because I was inspired by Lance Armstrong. 

2. I know now that he cheated. I know also that the most of the rest of the field cheated. Eddie Merckx cheated. Does that mean he should have his TDF's stripped too? 

3. I became a die hard Tour De France fan because of Lance Armstrong. My brother, wife, and I have some great memories of those TDF's that he didn't win. 

4. Why isn't Chris Carmichael's feet held to the fire like the rest of the Lance Armstrong team?

5. If Lance wouldn't have come out of retirement a few years ago, most people would still be thinking Lance is a hero of cycling and none of the investigations would have stuck. 

6. Cancer sucks. LiveStrong helps cancer patients and advocates for more funding for cancer research from governments.

7. I have as much disdain for anti-doping agencies as I do doping cheats. 

8. I still like Lance Armstrong and Mark McGwire. I still don't like Alberto Contador and Barry Bonds. 

9. I bet Phil Liggett is very sad right now. 

10. I need to go out on a long ride and clear my head.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

You need to get over it.


----------



## TallCoolOne (Jan 18, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> You need to get over it.


Still processing....but I'll be OK.


----------



## agm2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Two wrongs don't make a right, and neither does ten! Get over it.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

It's always best to be the #2 or #3 man, so that you can get a sweet deal for ratting out the #1 man.

Sweet Deal= 6 months off, in the winter instead of a lifetime ban.
.
.


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

TallCoolOne said:


> 8. I still like Lance Armstrong and Mark McGwire. I still don't like Alberto Contador and Barry Bonds. .


My friend, you have the pairings all wrong here... McGwire and Conti go together and Bonds and lance are two peas in a pod... I'll never forget how Conti won the tour practically against his own team and director when lance came back. Complete ahole is/was lance...


----------



## niksch (May 15, 2012)

My rebuttal, for what it's worth:

1. Good for you. You've probably inspired others.

2. And this is the where I want to make my main point. It's not only that he cheated, but by the tesimony given in the "Reasoned Decision", he ran a doping ring that coerced and enforced that his teammates did too. This wasn't some dark room, closeted cheating, this was a pronounced effort for a team. Sure, those folks could have walked away, but they didn't. Would they have doped if Lance Armstrong had not coerced them? Levi yes, because he was on the sauce already. Others? We'll never really know, will we?

3. Okay.

4. Actually a very good question. Surely he would have had to know, right? However, he has not even been borught into any of this.

5. That's what most commentators are saying... it was his narcissistic tendencies that brought hime down. he couldn't stand to be out of the limelight.

6. LiveStrong provides advocacy for cancer patients, yes. 

7. How would we know if anyone was a doping cheat if we didn't have doping agencies. Say what you will about the USADA, WADA, ASADA, etc, but they are a necessary part of sport and rule enforcement.

8. I like Alberto Contador and Mark McGwire. I don't much care for Lance Armstrong and I don't like Barry Bonds. Or Alex Rodriguez for that matter. 

9. Phil Liggett is in denial and will be for a very long time. Especially if Lance never fully admits to doping. Phil Anderson, however, has admitted he is very sad for believing this fairy tale.

10. I just got back from a night ride, and now I'm ready for a beer.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

First of all, good opening post.

It's been over a week since the Reasoned Decision came out. I've read most of the 300+ pages of the RD. I've read most of the Affidavits. The smoke hasn't cleared, but the shock-and-awe of the RD is starting to pass.

At the end of the day, from my perspective, my opinion of Lance hasn't changed. I watched all of his TdFs. When you watch, in particular, his 2000 ride (flight?) up Hautacam, his 2004 dominance (multiple stage wins, not just ITTs), his 2005 ride up Courchevel with busted dopers Valverde, Rasmussen, Mancebo, and Basso all in tow -- how can any reasonable person have concluded that he was clean??? I think most of us (particularly his sponsors) have chosen to ignore that he wasn't clean because we couldn't prove that he cheated with a positive urine/blood test. But, aside from the sexy details of the doping practices detailed in the RD (using coat-hangers to hang blood bags after removing pictures from hotel room walls; getting fresh blood aboard the USPS bus), there's just nothing Earth-shattering in there. Levi doped?! Shocking. CVV doped?! Shocking.

My opinion of Lance is the same: from his generation, he was probably the most talented rider -- he could TT and climb, and compete in CX and MTB -- who cheated like almost everyone else during that time. In substance, not dissimilar to what Merxck and Simpson and Gaul and all the other major riders from every era were doing. I am not excusing the conduct. But for USADA to have singled him out and scorched the Earth on him and given six-month Fall-Winter suspensions to the canaries that sang .... it's as if USADA isn't any better than Lance. 

Meanwhile, ARod gets a slap on the wrist for his doping practices, will continue to earn $25 million for another five years, and has all of his endorsements intact ... because a strong sports league knows how to hide dirt under the carpet and keep the underground river of money flowing.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

niksch said:


> It's not only that he cheated, but by the tesimony given in the "Reasoned Decision", he ran a doping ring that coerced and enforced that his teammates did too. This wasn't some dark room, closeted cheating, this was a pronounced effort for a team. Sure, those folks could have walked away, but they didn't. Would they have doped if Lance Armstrong had not coerced them? Levi yes, because he was on the sauce already. Others? We'll never really know, will we?


Remember the RD was issued by the charging body -- i.e., the prosecutor. The RD is not a neutral document. It is an advocacy piece. Yes, the affidavits were signed by ex-riders and constitute their sworn testimony, but who drafted those affidavits? The riders? Hello no! The law firm representing USADA drafted those affidavits. Had Lance decided to spend the $$$ to challenge the allegations, we would have had a considerably toned-down decision issued by a purportedly neutral arbitration panel. 

So the statements in the RD about coercing teammates to doping, putting pressure on them, running a doping ring -- take it with a grain of salt. I think it is fair to say that there was a systemic doping culture that was prevalent among the leadership of the team (do you think, say, Liberty Seguros or Saeco was any different?), but it's not like Tom Danielson was a 9-year-old that did what dad told him to do and had no choice.


----------



## renedelbarco (Mar 28, 2010)

Solopc said:


> My friend, you have the pairings all wrong here... McGwire and Conti go together and Bonds and lance are two peas in a pod... I'll never forget how Conti won the tour practically against his own team and director when lance came back. Complete ahole is/was lance...


+1. Contador even had to buy his wheels that year.


----------



## nymackem (Oct 12, 2012)

*Help me understand this...*

So LA doped. OK, but so did Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, etc... all the other guys he beat in the GC on his way to 7 Tour wins. The guy's a schmuck, but he still won 7 Tours against the top doped-up cyclists of his generation. Ullrich is/was an absolute beast.

I don't know much about the technicalities of PEDs, so what's the explanation for this? Better doctors/programmatic doping? Better physiological response to the doping regime? Or when the playing field is leveled by all the GC contenders using PEDs, does it once again come down to genetics and work ethic? (And perhaps in Lance's case the fact that he did the Tour to the exclusion of pretty much everything else)


----------



## niksch (May 15, 2012)

Keep drinkin' the juice Fornaca. Keep drinking.Certainly the riders did not draft those documents. Those are written/typed documentation of recorded oral testimony. That's why there are so many typos. That's the way it's done now. I've been in arbitration (granted for a business, not individual) twice and that's what is done. 

If Lance had decided to contest these allegations, he'd be tens of millions poorer. That's why he didn't contest. He needs all the money he can get to protect against all the ancillary lawsuits he'll get...plus there are the trust funds for his kids right?

And, no, I don't think that Seguros or Saeco were different...except ofr a domineering "leader" who forced everyone to dope so HE had a fall-back plan if someone ratted. Looks like that plan is falling apart now.

It's true about Danielson and the others. I did say in my original comment that they could have walked away, but didn't. In the words of the Knight in the Indiana Jones Movie, "He (They) chose...poorly."


----------



## tnvol123 (Sep 11, 2012)

+1. So was Lance. Dope or no dope. 



nymackem said:


> So LA doped. OK, but so did Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, etc... all the other guys he beat in the GC on his way to 7 Tour wins. The guy's a schmuck, but he still won 7 Tours against the top doped-up cyclists of his generation. *Ullrich is/was an absolute beast.*
> 
> I don't know much about the technicalities of PEDs, so what's the explanation for this? Better doctors/programmatic doping? Better physiological response to the doping regime? Or when the playing field is leveled by all the GC contenders using PEDs, does it once again come down to genetics and work ethic? (And perhaps in Lance's case the fact that he did the Tour to the exclusion of pretty much everything else)


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Lance is a cheap and when got called out he hid behind lies and his cancer organisation. I don't buy the everyone else was doing it too excuse. What a pathetic attempt to lessen the culpability of a lying, bullying cheat. I think folk who bought into the LA hero story can't accept the whole truth without reservation because of the embarrassment of being duped So by blaming USADA for being aggressive in going after the most successful drug cheat of our era, they are again trying to deflect some shame into anger, typical guilty reaction, can't beat someone on reasonable grounds get aggressive and blame the accuser as being flawed. Typical LA legal team OM for over a decade. I seriously hope the civil suits against LA proceed so that he will finally be proven guilty in a court of law.

BTW
your signature is very long.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

TallCoolOne said:


> 2. I know now that he cheated.


If you're only now coming to this realization, then you are not a die-hard cycling fan, as you claim.

If you haven't cleared your head on all this by now, you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

kiwisimon said:


> Lance is a cheap and when got called out he hid behind lies and his cancer organisation. I don't buy the everyone else was doing it too excuse. What a pathetic attempt to lessen the culpability of a lying, bullying cheat. I think folk who bought into the LA hero story can't accept the whole truth without reservation because of the embarrassment of being duped So by blaming USADA for being aggressive in going after the most successful drug cheat of our era, they are again trying to deflect some shame into anger, typical guilty reaction, can't beat someone on reasonable grounds get aggressive and blame the accuser as being flawed. Typical LA legal team OM for over a decade. I seriously hope the civil suits against LA proceed so that he will finally be proven guilty in a court of law.
> 
> BTW
> your signature is very long.


I think the OP really needs that ride. Most of that list just comes off as a Joe Six-Pack flapping his gums.


----------



## iamnotfilip (Jul 9, 2007)

nymackem said:


> So LA doped. OK, but so did Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, etc... all the other guys he beat in the GC on his way to 7 Tour wins. The guy's a schmuck, but he still won 7 Tours against the top doped-up cyclists of his generation. Ullrich is/was an absolute beast.


Lance may be the best doper of his generation, but the point is that it doesn't matter. Who cares whether he had the best ability, the best doctors or the most daring and sophisticated program. In 20 years no one is going to remember his ability. He went out of his way to ensure he got the biggest illegal advantage he could and this is not what cycling is about. His attitude is synonymous with winning by cheating (to this day he is claiming innocence to maintain his image) and is always going to be associated with ugliest elements of professional cycling that ever existed.

And that's the way it should be.


----------



## saird (Aug 19, 2008)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It's always best to be the #2 or #3 man, so that you can get a sweet deal for ratting out the #1 man.
> 
> Sweet Deal= 6 months off, in the winter instead of a lifetime ban.
> .
> .


This is the absolute truth.
People are making careers out of it. There will have been a LOT of promotions off the back of all this, none of them have the sports best intentions at heart.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

I cannot believe there has not been 100 threads on each of those points the last weeks. 
oh wait, there has. never mind then/


----------



## TallCoolOne (Jan 18, 2010)

So what about Carmichael??? How is he unscathed?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Solopc said:


> My friend, you have the pairings all wrong here... McGwire and Conti go together and Bonds and lance are two peas in a pod... I'll never forget how Conti won the tour practically against his own team and director when lance came back. Complete ahole is/was lance...


Then you're remembering a bad dream. Conti had his team's backing and they were the strongest team. If you saw something different, they you were likely watching something different. He even rode Kloden off of the lead group at one point, costing himself valuable help and Kloden a couple of places on GC. 



niksch said:


> 2. And this is the where I want to make my main point. It's not only that he cheated, but by the tesimony given in the "Reasoned Decision", he ran a doping ring that coerced and enforced that his teammates did too. This wasn't some dark room, closeted cheating, this was a pronounced effort for a team. Sure, those folks could have walked away, but they didn't. Would they have doped if Lance Armstrong had not coerced them? Levi yes, because he was on the sauce already. Others? We'll never really know, will we?


All the top-level teams did, they just haven't had full investigations done on them yet. We have known that this was going on since the Festina (also Once, who were found to have car-loads of drugs when they abandoned the race). As with most of the Armstrong story for the last few years, he is getting more credit for being an evil overlord then he deserves. He's an athlete, he didn't invent any of this.



renedelbarco said:


> +1. Contador even had to buy his wheels that year.


Armstrong and Ullrich have purchased wheels out of pocket too (Lightweight- German super light wheels). It's not that uncommon when a sponsor doesn't have exactly what an athlete believes he needs to perform his best (in this case I believe it was a particular disc rear wheel, which Bontrager did not make).


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

niksch said:


> Keep drinkin' the juice Fornaca. Keep drinking.Certainly the riders did not draft those documents. Those are written/typed documentation of recorded oral testimony. That's why there are so many typos. That's the way it's done now. I've been in arbitration (granted for a business, not individual) twice and that's what is done."


Maybe I'm drinking the juice, but you should put the crack-pipe down. You are totally incorrect that affidavits are "typed documentation of recorded oral testimony." You are confusing an affidavit for a deposition transcript, which is a written record of oral testimony. So it is _not_ "the way it's done now". Again, the affidavits here are drafted by counsel to the USADA and reviewed and commented on by the affiant (and the affiant's counsel, if he hired one) until there is a draft that the affiant is comfortable signing, because once the affiant signs the affidavit and delivers it to USADA, it constitutes testimony that is subject to perjury charges if it is proven to be false. 

You've been in arbitration? Great. You're still not a lawyer.


----------



## niksch (May 15, 2012)

fornaca68 said:


> . You're still not a lawyer.


Good one. Never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm an engineer.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

fornaca68 said:


> Maybe I'm drinking the juice, but you should put the crack-pipe down. You are totally incorrect that affidavits are "typed documentation of recorded oral testimony." You are confusing an affidavit for a deposition transcript, which is a written record of oral testimony. So it is _not_ "the way it's done now". Again, the affidavits here are drafted by counsel to the USADA and reviewed and commented on by the affiant (and the affiant's counsel, if he hired one) until there is a draft that the affiant is comfortable signing, because once the affiant signs the affidavit and delivers it to USADA, it constitutes testimony that is subject to perjury charges if it is proven to be false.
> 
> You've been in arbitration? Great. You're still not a lawyer.


The affidavits are still what they are - sworn testimony. To say that they would have been watered down or any less accusatorial if Lance put up a defense is pure speculation on your part. Making a distinction between a deposition transcript and an affidavit establishes nothing. So Niksch ain't a lawyer. So what. Yip yapping about the differences between affidavits and transcripts only obfuscates the truth.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

TallCoolOne said:


> So what about Carmichael??? How is he unscathed?


what about him? what should USADA have on him? he was just a fast talking smiling front.


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

It takes more than doping to win a Tour....


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

zion rasta said:


> It takes more than doping to win a Tour....


It most certainly does! Namely, a team loaded with dopers, a Motoman following with epo, a wife handing out coritzone and a governing body that looks the other way when you get pinched with a positive...

In all seriousness, I'd love to have the mental and intestinal fortitude of Mr Armstrong. But the myth is well and truly dead. Without that massive support system, I'm left to wonder if he'd have won even one let alone seven.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Tschai said:


> The affidavits are still what they are - sworn testimony. To say that they would have been watered down or any less accusatorial if Lance put up a defense is pure speculation on your part. Making a distinction between a deposition transcript and an affidavit establishes nothing. So Niksch ain't a lawyer. So what. Yip yapping about the differences between affidavits and transcripts only obfuscates the truth.


You are also wrong. If Lance defended himself, there would have been no one-sided affidavits drafted by USADA's counsel and given to the USPS riders for them to sign. (Look carefully at the wording of the affidavits and notice how they dovetail quite nicely with the text of the Reasoned Decision. No, surprise, because USADA's counsel drafted both!) Had Lance defended himself, George, Levi et al. would have been called as fact witnesses to testify -- and be subject to cross-examination by Lance's counsel -- at the arbitration hearing. Lance made his own crucifix by waiving his right to challenge the case. To be clear -- a deposition transcript and an affidavit -- while both constitute testimony -- are different things. 

And who is obfuscating the truth? I'm not taking the position that Lance didn't dope. We all knew he was doping years ago. Again, nothing earth-shattering in the RD.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

zion rasta said:


> It takes more than doping to win a Tour....


what people don't realise is that epo/blood doping is a super drug....equivalent to bolting on a turbo!

the performance gains are phenomenal so the person that wins is simply the person who has doped epo/blood doped the most. there is no such thing as an equal playing field.

sure all rider that make to the tdf are exceptional athletes but peds can make a good rider into a champion. the Olympics are full of examples of athletes coming out of nowhere and winning a truckload of medals.....michelle smith anyone??


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

fornaca68 said:


> You are also wrong. If Lance defended himself, there would have been no one-sided affidavits drafted by USADA's counsel and given to the USPS riders for them to sign. (Look carefully at the wording of the affidavits and notice how they dovetail quite nicely with the text of the Reasoned Decision. No, surprise, because USADA's counsel drafted both!) Had Lance defended himself, George, Levi et al. would have been called as fact witnesses to testify -- and be subject to cross-examination by Lance's counsel -- at the arbitration hearing. Lance made his own crucifix by waiving his right to challenge the case. To be clear -- a deposition transcript and an affidavit -- while both constitute testimony -- are different things.
> 
> And who is obfuscating the truth? I'm not taking the position that Lance didn't dope. We all knew he was doping years ago. Again, nothing earth-shattering in the RD.


My point is simple - why mention the fact that the affidavits are "one sided" and drafted by USADA unless you are trying to imply that they are less than reliable or that the case against Lance was somehow tainted by them. Moreover, affidavits could have still made their way into the case even if Lance put up a defense.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Solopc said:


> It most certainly does! Namely, a team loaded with dopers, a Motoman following with epo, a wife handing out coritzone and a governing body that looks the other way when you get pinched with a positive...
> 
> In all seriousness, I'd love to have the mental and intestinal fortitude of Mr Armstrong. But the myth is well and truly dead. Without that massive support system, I'm left to wonder if he'd have won even one let alone seven.


Doubtful he would have won a TdF, given his physiology...would have never stayed with the climbers, let alone dropped them, and he was never a great TT guy in the early, cleaner days either. I think he would have won some stages and been a better classics rider like a Phillipe Gilbert.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Solopc said:


> In all seriousness, I'd love to have the mental and intestinal fortitude of Mr Armstrong.


Sure, but you can say that about a lot of cyclists who _aren't_ psychopaths and in such deep doo-doo.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

_Doubtful he would have won a TdF, given his physiology...would have never stayed with the climbers, let alone dropped them, and he was never a great TT guy in the early, cleaner days either._

Were there every any early, cleaner days?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

EPO = game changer.

Where was Lance before EPO? Then suddenly post-caner Lance became a beast.
Sorry but this sort of transformation doesn't happen in the pro rank (of any sport) unless you used a superdope.

Athletes may see a dramatic change in performance when they go from 13-14 years old to 21-22 years old due to their body still developing and as they gain more experience in the respective sport. Pre-cancer and post-caner Lance is a miracle of modern doping.

Some of you Lance sympathizers have been following what Dr Falsetti posts on this forum. I'll you guys are the same folks who would be quick to put in a one liner against Falsetti before Lance got busted wide open.

But here's my question to you folks? Why do you feel sorry or sympathize a cheat?? not just any cheat, but the biggest one of his generation and of the sport? Do you want to tell you kids that's ok to cheat? Pablo Escobar was also though as a good man too by those whom he gave much money too. I feel like you Lance sympathizers are thinking along the like of the Pablo sympathizers (yes, there are actually those who morn his death). I say to you folks, examine your principles again. Not all dopers are equal, just like not all criminals are equal. Some are bad, and then you have a few who are extremely systematically evil. LA fits the later. Yup, LA fooled some of you, played up to the emotions to some. Livestrong was part of the grand scheme. It's like Pablo Escobar's donations to his local communities (using blood money of course; LA used himself after it's on dope). Using money/fame to leverage the emotions of helpless people (Pablo used his local communities; LA used the caner patients) to shield themselves. And LA and Pablo played it well because we human beings, it feel the need to sympathize caner and the poor,.. and LA and Pablo sure knew how to garner such sympathy gy associating themselves to the cancer and the poor. (BTW, I still think LA got his cancer through the use of testosterone).


----------



## Old Fogey (Oct 18, 2012)

Okay, so Lance was 'busted'. He deserves it if he cheated as does every other rider who ever doped in their lives, and that would be almost everyone who competed in the Tour in the modern era. To think otherwise is a bit naive.

What really matters now is what will be learned from the whole sordid mess.

Personally, I believe Lance will be fine. He did good things with his fame; he will continue do do good things in spite of his notoriety. He has enough residual goodwill with the public to still be a positive influence, and people can be very forgiving. I'm even thinking of putting my autographed photo of Tiger Woods back up on the family room wall.


----------



## zone5 (Aug 21, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It's always best to be the #2 or #3 man, so that you can get a sweet deal for ratting out the #1 man.
> 
> Sweet Deal= 6 months off, in the winter instead of a lifetime ban.
> .
> .


This must be the most honest answer!

How about USADA single handedly ruined the sports reputation and now major sponsors dropping like flys ex. 17 year old sponsor Robobank. 

A lot of Pro Tour guys says "we all know doping exist, but why focus on the past but the future of Cycling."


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

zone5 said:


> A lot of Pro Tour guys says "we all know doping exist, but why focus on the past but the future of Cycling."


wow is it still 1998? 
or maybe 2006?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

renedelbarco said:


> +1. Contador even had to buy his wheels that year.


but I bet he still got his blood and drugs. With those two on the team Brunny had to win that race or be labeling the director who couldn't win with the best (most drugged) riders on the team.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

TallCoolOne said:


> So what about Carmichael??? How is he unscathed?


He is not unscathed... He has lost all credibility. He was just a figure head, susposed to be Lance's coach and he made alot of $$ off of that, of course it was all a lie.. He is pretty much a joke now.. Tyler Hamilton in his book referred to him as a 'cheerleader'.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)




----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

TallCoolOne,

Sorry you have been disillusioned. But realize that it is disilliusionment, not betrayal.

Glad that you were were inspired to lead an active lifestyle. I hope that you can continue...for the right reasons...for you. Not because of someone on the tv.

Pro cycling is a freak show. But I still enjoy following it most of the time. (With lots of salt)


----------



## Ripton (Apr 21, 2011)

TallCoolOne said:


> Thought #
> 
> 6. Cancer sucks. LiveStrong helps cancer patients and advocates for more funding for cancer research from governments.


It certainly does. Livestrong was probably his one chance of making it out of all of this with some semblance of respect. But no, he's f*cked that as well.


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

Ripton said:


> It certainly does. Livestrong was probably his one chance of making it out of all of this with some semblance of respect. But no, he's f*cked that as well.


 I don't begrudge him his speaking or his appearance fees, there are many aholes who charge a small fortune to shake their hand... But, if this story is true 10k a head going directly to him seems outrageous. I guess that's how he afforded the jet, again assuming these numbers are true.


----------



## TallCoolOne (Jan 18, 2010)

mmoose said:


> TallCoolOne,
> 
> Sorry you have been disillusioned. But realize that it is disilliusionment, not betrayal.
> 
> ...


The bottom line in this era and for the last 20 plus years, if something looks unbelievable in elite sports, don't believe it. I love sports. I coached basketball for 18 years. I grew up believing in heroes. I want to believe in heroes. BUT, I have unfortunately realized you can't. 

I thought for a while that Lance probably doped prior to cancer, but I thought no way would a cancer survivor put anything in their body would ever cause unnatural cell growth. That's why I hung on to the myth that Lance was clean for a long time. 

Lesson learned.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*My list*

1. Lance doped..yeh yeh yeh...
2. Lance told on Tyler Hamilton for doping after beating Lance up Ventoux.
3. The UCI harassed Tyler about doping because Lance told them to.
4. Lance will go to the ends of the earth to literally ruin anyone who challenges him (ex: Lemond/Andreau etc etc etc). He would do it to any of us on this forum without blinking an eye.
5. Lance threatened to use his Livestrong/Caner survivor leverage against a presidential candidate (J. Kerry) if he didn't get his way
6. Lance "fired" riders for testifying against him and attempted to ruin their careers
7. Lance paid off failed tests and made "donations" to the UCI
8. Lance directed team doctors to stop giving his own team mates the "good" stuff when he felt they were encroaching on "his" talent
9. etc etc

Note: I too was a fan............................................long ago I traveled to France to watch him race the TdF in 2001. What Lance has done in the cycling world trumps what all others have attempted to do imo. Not cool.


----------

