# Very saddening seeing Tyler on 60 Minutes tonight.



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Looks like the pillars of truth are crumbling around Lance. Doping has gotten so ingrained in pro cycling, I wonder if it will ever end. I give Tyler lots of credit to come forth and speak. I know his hand was forced. You could tell he was speaking frank and that every word hurt him. Lance should step out of denil and come clean for the good of the great sport.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

No chance. My guess is Lance might go to jail, screaming "not a doper!"


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

You can tell it was a very hard interview for him. Tyler came clean, and considering Hincappie did the same but denied them the interview it's hard to believe that Lance isn't going down in the end. 

But in all honesty, it shows that in many ways doping is the norm at the pro level which sucks. I've seen doping at the lowest levels (cat 5...) and it's like... really? why?


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

High Gear said:


> Looks like the pillars of truth are crumbling around Lance. Doping has gotten so ingrained in pro cycling, I wonder if it will ever end. I give Tyler lots of credit to come forth and speak. I know his hand was forced. You could tell he was speaking frank and that every word hurt him. Lance should step out of denil and come clean for the good of the great sport.


Hmmmm. Even if / though you are right in your conclusions, using T.H.'s word as your tipping point, your source of veracity... yipes.

Oh, and there's an entire forum for this... Just so you know where to find it when the mods move it in 5.4.3.2....


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Yeah.*



cyclesport45 said:


> No chance. My guess is Lance might go to jail, screaming "not a doper!"


Lance is sticking to his guns, having passed the tests and come out smelling like a rose. If he's convicted, it will be from testimony from team doctors and directors, who will describe a program of systematic doping that included Lance. And he still might skate.


----------



## onespeed (Mar 21, 2002)

*The pillars of truth? More like the pillars of deceit.*



High Gear said:


> Looks like the pillars of truth are crumbling around Lance. Doping has gotten so ingrained in pro cycling, I wonder if it will ever end. I give Tyler lots of credit to come forth and speak. I know his hand was forced. You could tell he was speaking frank and that every word hurt him. Lance should step out of denil and come clean for the good of the great sport.


This is all still hearsay. Where is the real evidence? It upsets me that people start to take the word of the convicted as evidence against the innocent. 

Wasnt it Tyler who claimed a chimera was responsible for his dirty test? Then he switched to a different tack later on and then when he gets caught again he throws it all in and starts slandering Lance. 

All they have are the words of caught and disgraced riders. 

Just because you have more than one guilty person accusing, doesnt make it truth or fact. 

When I see a true, validated and certified dirty test result - then I will consider that perhaps something is rotten in the state of Danmark. Until then, hearsay doesnt mean a thing to me.


----------



## seeborough (Feb 3, 2004)

onespeed said:


> This is all still hearsay. Where is the real evidence? It upsets me that people start to take the word of the convicted as evidence against the innocent.
> 
> Wasnt it Tyler who claimed a chimera was responsible for his dirty test? Then he switched to a different tack later on and then when he gets caught again he throws it all in and starts slandering Lance.
> 
> ...


This is not hearsay anymore, it's an actual eye witness account (or more than one, if you count Hincapie, Andreu, etc.). 
I understand you want to believe, but it might be time to let go...

P.S.: As for the moderators moving this thread to the Doping Forum, I'd vote to keep it on the front page for a little while. It's pretty big news. And certainly more interesting than "Bibs or no bibs" or "[email protected] didn't wave back at me!".


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

No Lance here on Canukistan. NSA/Farm workers/Al Sharpton. And I watches spechul.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

bikerjulio said:


> No Lance here on Canukistan. NSA/Farm workers/Al Sharpton. And I watches spechul.


FYI, I live in the GTA Ontario, and I caught it on Shaw Cable.
You missed the first half of the show at 7:00PM.


----------



## Bobcat (Dec 2, 2005)

Whatever happened to the Tyler's "BELIEVE!" foundation? An old pattern here, deny and deny under oath and then, when your back is against the wall admit and attack. Landis and now Hamilton.

Have to say Tyler did it in better fashion than Floyd. 

What I thought most interesting was the World Anti-Doping Agency head saying how easy it was to beat the drug tests. Well in that case, why are there tests? To catch the careless and the stupid? To give the appearance of compliance without the substance? 

And finally if everybody was doing it, will Indurain lose his titles? Merckx? Anquitil? They're gonna have to wipe the history books clean. There were NO Tour de France winners since the drug ban was instituted back -- when? 30 or 40 years ago? 

And a question. If Armstrong is shown to have been doping outside the USA, what jurisdiction does the USA have here? 

Another. Why bother with all this? Why is the federal government concerning itself with rules of athletic competition? Why go after athletes who give the public what it wants?


----------



## onespeed (Mar 21, 2002)

*Accusations do not amount to due process.*



seeborough said:


> This is not hearsay anymore, it's an actual eye witness account (or more than one, if you count Hincapie, Andreu, etc.).
> I understand you want to believe, but it might be time to let go...
> 
> P.S.: As for the moderators moving this thread to the Doping Forum, I'd vote to keep it on the front page for a little while. It's pretty big news. And certainly more interesting than "Bibs or no bibs" or "[email protected] didn't wave back at me!".


I have been accused of things as well. I am still innocent. Until they hard evidence other than people saying they "saw" something, I will say Lance is innocent. 

I am a Lance fan but I am also a fan of due process. Speculation without a hearing is just that:

SPECULATION


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

Looks like i missed it on rogers. Can anyone poast the segment?


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

"Why bother with all this? Why is the federal government concerning itself with rules of athletic competition? Why go after athletes who give the public what it wants? "

I've always wondered, does the fact that most of this happened while on the USPS TEAM have any thing to do with a Federal investigation?


----------



## Bobcat (Dec 2, 2005)

What is the law here? Yes, the Postal team was an American team. But if several of the team conspire to commit a murder in Spain, isn't it Spanish law that will apply? The offense was not on U.S. soil. Considering that most of the team spend much of the year abroad as a team--except for the Tour of Georgia and maybe California, and that probably not much illegal was done in the USA, how does the U.S. government have any authority to investigate or mayhap prosecute?


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

bikerjulio said:


> Looks like i missed it on rogers. Can anyone poast the segment?


http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...tp://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366948n


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

Bobcat said:


> Another. Why bother with all this? Why is the federal government concerning itself with rules of athletic competition? Why go after athletes who give the public what it wants?


They took GOVERNMENT MONEY. Hello *USPS*...

Part of the deal was no doping.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*It's a charge of fraud.*



Bobcat said:


> What is the law here? Yes, the Postal team was an American team. But if several of the team conspire to commit a murder in Spain, isn't it Spanish law that will apply? The offense was not on U.S. soil. Considering that most of the team spend much of the year abroad as a team--except for the Tour of Georgia and maybe California, and that probably not much illegal was done in the USA, how does the U.S. government have any authority to investigate or mayhap prosecute?


The US govt. is suing the US Postal team owners for fraud: getting USPS to fund a team that won races by deceit, that is, not fulfilling the terms of their contract.


----------



## evs (Feb 18, 2004)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366948n&tag=related;photovideo


----------



## Bobcat (Dec 2, 2005)

There is a certain humor in the situation, that the U.S. Govt was benefitted by a successful USPS team that was doin' drugs. If somebody in the chain of command at USPS suspected that drugs were involved (and there probably was, assuming a lack ot total naivite), then, heck, we could have the U.S. Govt as co-conspirator. Can sponsors who are aware of drug use be indicted? Why not?


----------



## Bobcat (Dec 2, 2005)

Question about that. Isn't it a defense that drug use was prevalent in pro cycling? They needed to dope to fulfil the contract. To not dope meant to lose, which was against the interest of the sponsor. Surely the sponsor has no beef with all those TdF wins!

Added: Fraud? If there was fraud or misrepresentation, isn't that a civil matter, not criminal?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

onespeed said:


> This is all still hearsay. Where is the real evidence? It upsets me that people start to take the word of the convicted as evidence against the innocent.
> 
> Wasnt it Tyler who claimed a chimera was responsible for his dirty test? Then he switched to a different tack later on and then when he gets caught again he throws it all in and starts slandering Lance.
> 
> ...


When the US federal government, grand juries and limited immunity come into play, it is an entirely different world. TH is telling the truth. The upside to lying is virtually gone at this point. Also, as stated already, you need to look up the definition of hearsay.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

Bobcat said:


> Whatever happened to the Tyler's "BELIEVE!" foundation? An old pattern here, deny and deny under oath and then, when your back is against the wall admit and attack. Landis and now Hamilton.
> 
> Have to say Tyler did it in better fashion than Floyd.
> 
> ...


Because Jeff Novitsky is an agent of the federal government and he has to go after somebody!!!  Seriously, I agree with you. WTF is Novitsky doing? He is an agent for the FDA. He sounds like a guy who is still bitter about not getting into the FBI or NSA. 

I believe Lance is guilty- there is no way he can't be. But I also believe Contador dopes. Wasting tax dollars on this is fackin ridiculous. Let WADA or the Tour themselves go after the dopers.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

onespeed said:


> I have been accused of things as well. I am still innocent. Until they hard evidence other than people saying they "saw" something, I will say Lance is innocent.
> 
> I am a Lance fan but I am also a fan of due process. Speculation without a hearing is just that:
> 
> SPECULATION


Lance will have due process at his trial. This internet forum and CBS TV are not the forums for due process. In addition, hard evidence = direct testimony of witnesses. It is unbelievable the people here who think they are legal experts.


----------



## onespeed (Mar 21, 2002)

*Hearsay was not the right word to use - this is all accusation*



Tschai said:


> When the US federal government, grand juries and limited immunity come into play, it is an entirely different world. TH is telling the truth. The upside to lying is virtually gone at this point. Also, as stated already, you need to look up the definition of hearsay.


Grand juries dont mean a thing without an indictment being handed down. Even after an indictment the trial is the true tell. 

No indictments have been handed down. 

No dirty tests have been submitted. 

Affidavits from disgraced and disgruntled riders are the full portent of the case so far. 

I see nothing so far that Lance cannot exonerate himself from. 

Again, what happened to due process? People are convicting Lance on pure speculation. 

Why is it so hard to believe that a talent manifested itself in Lance? Why try to tear him down because he has done so well and been so successful?


----------



## onespeed (Mar 21, 2002)

*Statements are "hard evidence" if you have nothing else.*



Tschai said:


> Lance will have due process at his trial. This internet forum and CBS TV are not the forums for due process. In addition, hard evidence = direct testimony of witnesses. It is unbelievable the people here who think they are legal experts.


You cannot convict a person based solely on the basis of statements made against them by impeachable witnesses.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

onespeed said:


> Grand juries dont mean a thing without an indictment being handed down. Even after an indictment the trial is the true tell.
> 
> No indictments have been handed down.
> 
> ...


Again, due process does not happen at Road Bike Review. Everything here is opinion. As an fyi, my opinion here is not based on whether I am for or against Lance. It is based on what I have heard, seen and read. 

Also, there is so much more than just disgraced and disgruntled witnesses. 60 Minutes has reported that unidentified sources told it that George Hincapie has told federal authorities he saw the seven-time Tour de France winner use performance-enhancing drugs. 60 Minutes is pretty reliable when it comes to news. Is Hincapie disgruntled? I doubt it. In addition, there were payments, meetings, associations and so much more.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

onespeed said:


> You cannot convict a person based solely on the basis of statements made against them by impeachable witnesses.


This statement is not correct. You can convict a person solely on witness testimony. It happens all the time. The issue of their credibility will be up to the trier of fact. Impeachment is not an outcome, it is a process.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Ride-Fly said:


> Because Jeff Novitsky is an agent of the federal government and he has to go after somebody!!!  Seriously, I agree with you. WTF is Novitsky doing? He is an agent for the FDA. He sounds like a guy who is still bitter about not getting into the FBI or NSA.
> 
> I believe Lance is guilty- there is no way he can't be. But I also believe Contador dopes. Wasting tax dollars on this is fackin ridiculous. Let WADA or the Tour themselves go after the dopers.


All of this.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

I watched the program. I thought it was excellent with a proper line of questioning, and imho I thought Hamilton handled it very well.

I always loved watching LA ride/race; figured he probably did dope, at least at some point though I hoped not. If Hamilton's testimony is accurate, then LA's @sshat competitive nature reduces to Caligula-like insanity.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

Yes, he had to swear he was clean. You don't get to swindle people out of their money and get away with it. It's fraud. The USPS put their reputation on the line. They chose lance as a way to convey that the USPS is a trustworthy and valid method of shipping stuff. When your face becomes a disgrace it becomes an embarassment. I suppose they could run with the "When your EPO needs to be there on time, go with US".


----------



## ilmaestro (May 3, 2008)

onespeed said:


> You cannot convict a person based solely on the basis of statements made against them by impeachable witnesses.


Um, yes you can. It happens all the time.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

The 60 minutes piece was terrific if you've had your head in the sand for the better part of the last decade in the world of cycling, otherwise it was all old hat. Except one thing: the alleged positive EPO test of Lance at the 2001 Tour de Suisse and the alleged conspiratorial cover-up among the UCI and USPS management. It was refreshing to finally hear something new in the did-he-or-didn't-he-dope fest against Lance.


----------



## oily666 (Apr 7, 2007)

I dunno. Hamilton seemed a bit vague about things he should have known about in detail. I do agree with marc though _"Wasting tax dollars on this is fackin ridiculous. Let WADA or the Tour themselves go after the dopers"._ Then, if WADA finds LA is dirty, the feds can use that evidence against LA and the Posties.


----------



## ronbo613 (Jan 19, 2009)

I live in Boonieville, and I don't have TV, so I watched this interview on the internet.
An expose on performance enhancing drugs in sports sponsored by a drug whose first letter is "V", last letter is "A", in between is "iagr". Very convincing. Reason I spell it out is because this forum bans the name of the drug. 
Hypocritical. I have lost most of the respect I've had for this forum; RBR is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Pass the bong, I'll take a couple shrooms and some EPO with my bacon and eggs.
Gimme a break, drugs are as much a part of America as the 4th of July.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

I disagree there's no waste of resources here. I suspect this has been one of the cheaper investigations when it comes to doping. 

I found the interview a revelation. I like the part about the Tour De Swiss positive, the $125K in donations to cover up his positives. And the little tid bits about the sack lunch in a white sack that all the posti's got, it was cute, like they were going back to school only instead of bologna sandwiches and cheese crackers it was Epo and T. And the transfusion stories were the cherry on top. 

I gotta say Lance is probably not going to sleep to well tonight.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ilmaestro said:


> Um, yes you can. It happens all the time.


Yes you can, but I think hard evidence would help. I still cannot believe Nowitzky's investigation hasn't unearthed some paper trail, money trail or other evidence.

At the same time, there is a critical mass of witnesses where impeaching credibility of ALL of them becomes very unlikely, and therefore each admission like Tyler's, and supposedly Hincapie puts incredible pressure on Armstrong and others to come forward.

I don't think Armstrong is going to jail. He will find a way out, even if it means (gasp!) admitting to doping and selling out Ferrari, Bruyneel or whoever else...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*You should be a lawyer!*



Bobcat said:


> Question about that. Isn't it a defense that drug use was prevalent in pro cycling? They needed to dope to fulfil the contract. To not dope meant to lose, which was against the interest of the sponsor. Surely the sponsor has no beef with all those TdF wins!
> 
> Added: Fraud? If there was fraud or misrepresentation, isn't that a civil matter, not criminal?


Not bad. :biggrin5: The govt. could sue LA or whoever owned US Postal team for damages, or to get their money back, I'm speculating. They could clean out LA's bank accounts, probably worse than putting him in jail. :shocked:


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

One pelota rottisserie


----------



## cinelliguy (Jan 4, 2011)

Very impeachable in deed. An all this coming under coercion by the Federal prosecutors office and out of a government that tortures innocent people all the time. The Feds have lost their ability to focus on what is really important.

I feel sorry for Tyler, he looked pained and bullied.

At the end of the day they have to prove it.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> The 60 minutes piece was terrific if you've had your head in the sand for the better part of the last decade in the world of cycling, otherwise it was all old hat. Except one thing: the alleged positive EPO test of Lance at the 2001 Tour de Suisse and the alleged conspiratorial cover-up among the UCI and USPS management. It was refreshing to finally hear something new in the did-he-or-didn't-he-dope fest against Lance.


I thought Landis broke that story first.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

Lemond exonerated Landis same Contador the only clean one I guess LOL!!


----------



## Rhymenocerus (Jul 17, 2010)

In the end we just have to realize how many billions of dollars have been spent shaping Armstrong into the mega icon that he is. There is so much money tied up in his success and image I really doubt anyone will have the balls to go against him for real. Just more he said she said garbage.

Of course hes guilty, but nobody has a smoking gun.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

onespeed said:


> You cannot convict a person based solely on the basis of statements made against them by impeachable witnesses.


You might want to check out the way your courts work. US prisons are full of inmates convicted of crimes on the testimony of impeachable witnesses. Some have been sent to the execution chamber too.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

55x11 said:


> I thought Landis broke that story first.


Landis said that Lance told him of the positive that was taken care of, but the 60 minutes piece added a lot more detail and background to the story.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

whatever : a lot of folk in RBR need to appologise in thought if not words to Greg Lemond. How many times was he called a whiny biatch?


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Oh and TREK sucks with their bullying of GL. Wankers treated him like the poohy end of a stick cause he was calling their golden boy a cheat and drug taker. Screw them.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

*Bravo!*

Well said.



Bobcat said:


> Whatever happened to the Tyler's "BELIEVE!" foundation? An old pattern here, deny and deny under oath and then, when your back is against the wall admit and attack. Landis and now Hamilton.
> 
> Have to say Tyler did it in better fashion than Floyd.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> I thought Landis broke that story first.


Actually Lemond broke that story first. Julien DeVries, head mechanic for USPS told him about almost 10 years ago. 

Interesting to note that in Julien's version of the story Armstrong already had the deal with the UCI in place prior to the positive at the Tour de Suisse. Perhaps that is why Tyler said Armstrong was not concerned when he tested positive. He knew nothing would come of it.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Bobcat said:


> And a question. If Armstrong is shown to have been doping outside the USA, what jurisdiction does the USA have here?
> 
> Another. Why bother with all this? Why is the federal government concerning itself with rules of athletic competition? Why go after athletes who give the public what it wants?


Have you read about the federal case? http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6054645

Fraud is a no no when you do it to the Feds. Armstrong is part of building a case against the team owners.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Since there was talk of the teams starting their own governing body earlier this year, perhaps it's time to put that plan into action. At least they would agree to cover up everybody's positive tests, instead of just one guy's.

The only things I see in all this that deserve prosecution are Tyler's, Floyd's and [evidently] LA's fraudulent activities with their foundations/charities. Those have real victims. But even then it should be restitution rather than jail time since jail isn't going to get anyone's money back (or to the charitable activity it was intended for).


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

I was actually impressed with Tyler.

Clearly, 60 Minutes wanted to make it all about Armstrong.....tyler was consistant in answering yes, we all did it that way, I did it too. For Tyler it was less about Armstrong than the systemic use. 

I disagree that 60 minutes questioning was very good. They took the easy way out and sensationalized it around Armstrong as opposed to addressing the broader issue of the pervasivness of it and the conspiracy of silence and involvement of all levels of the sport, riders, team managers, owners, governing body, etc. I know why they did it, but they missed a more important story IMO.

Len


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

Did Tyler's eyes tell a story too.

Could have been pain the the answers he provided or lack of conviction (lying) by not looking at the interviewer. His eyes flicked back and forth like a young child not telling the truth.

Seemed more shifty than pained to me.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

pigpen said:


> Did Tyler's eyes tell a story too.
> 
> Could have been pain the the answers he provided or lack of conviction (lying) by not looking at the interviewer. His eyes flicked back and forth like a young child not telling the truth.
> 
> Seemed more shifty than pained to me.


Yeah, he made it all up. Put his ass on the line, lying to the grand jury (which can get you prison time) just so he could ruin Armstrong.

Give me a flippin break.


----------



## Bobcat (Dec 2, 2005)

55x11 said:


> I don't think Armstrong is going to jail. He will find a way out, even if it means (gasp!) admitting to doping and selling out Ferrari, Bruyneel or whoever else...


But isn't Armstrong the Big Target here? I mean, who would give John Gotti a sweet deal because he ratted out a hitman? Generally works the other way. 

Part of the bribery story we've heard before, from Landis. What's the chance of going after cycling union officials? Ha!

Bruyneel would be fine if he never sets foot in the States again. Of course, these accusations could spark off prosecutions in Europe, and Europe is where most of this occurred. 

There are so many alleged offenses, occuring in so many different countries, that unless there is some kind of international tribunal set up for criminal prosecution (good luck on that), I don't see hardly anyone going to jail. Not Armstrong and certainly not Bruyneel. Most of not all of the doping/bribery events occurred in various countries in Europe. Yeah, maybe the feddies can get Armstrong for perjury, but the way he is lawyered up, not much will come home to roost. Armstrong is far smarter than some baseball or football player on steroids.

I don;t like Armstrong, but neither do I like this nation's drug policies or the anti-doping agencies. Den of hypocrisy. Put me on a jury and I'd hang it. Jury nullification.


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

MaddSkillz said:


> Yeah, he made it all up. Put his ass on the line, lying to the grand jury (which can get you prison time) just so he could ruin Armstrong.
> 
> Give me a flippin break.


Never said he made it up.
Just looked really stange to me.
Eye contact matters.


I have always felt that they all did drugs and LA was just as bad if not worse than most.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Len J said:


> I was actually impressed with Tyler.
> 
> Clearly, 60 Minutes wanted to make it all about Armstrong.....tyler was consistant in answering yes, we all did it that way, I did it too. For Tyler it was less about Armstrong than the systemic use.
> 
> ...



I see your point. Unfortunately there is no "story" in this to John Q Pub without the Armstrong angle. 

I did like that they:

1.) directly questioned Tyler if doping was an individual rider decision, or if it was "forced" (by coercion and treating doping as a right of passage) upon them by team management. 

2.) brought in Andreu who explained the doping pervasiveness in terms of, _'All of a sudden there were guys blowing by me that shouldn't have been, sprinters going hard over the mountains, all of a sudden I couldn't even hang on to to these guys' wheels. I was thinking what the hell is going on here?'_ (I think Lemond made the same observation as to his last year racing).

3.) Addressed the Ferrari angle.

4.) Tyler explained, in his estimation that at the very least, the top three riders on every team were on extensive doping programs.

5.) gave context to the "rigueur du jour" aspect of doping in pro cycling at the top international levels.

No, it's not All About the Armstrong...and they did lean rather heavily on that angle...but it gave context to the problem that the general public can relate to, and imho I thought they did a good job with using that angle to help the the average, non educated citizen begin to understand the enormity of doping problem from the individual rider, right on up to the top of the governing bodies of the sport. 


I've said it before...all of these guys have a choice to say no and refuse to play the game if that's what it takes to get in the sandbox.


----------



## Bobcat (Dec 2, 2005)

*Eyes...*

When I lie myself, I am very conscious that I am looking deeply and steadily into the eyes of the person I am lying to. Most of the better con-men who have tried to pull a scam on me have done the same.. Beware of a anyone with steady eyes that look into yours. Also beware of anyone with shifty eyes that avoid yours. 

I am about as good identifying a liar as I am finding a winning horse from the way they walk up to the loading gate.

Would be interesting to compare how Hamilton looked when he assured his friends and followers in the "Believe!" movement that he was innocent. Bicycling mag ran a very very good article about that, suggesting that maybe Tyler was lying to himself.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

pigpen said:


> Never said he made it up.
> Just looked really stange to me.
> Eye contact matters.
> 
> ...


Everyone handles stress differently.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> I see your point. Unfortunately there is no "story" in this to John Q Pub without the Armstrong angle.
> 
> I did like that they:
> 
> ...


Fair.

Given the choice at 19 to possibly be best in the world and the cost of admission is to dope or go home, I'd suspect I would have doped. In hindsight, I'd hope I wouldn't, but at 19.......I think I would bow to the pressure.

Len


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

pigpen said:


> Did Tyler's eyes tell a story too.
> 
> Could have been pain the the answers he provided or lack of conviction (lying) by not looking at the interviewer. His eyes flicked back and forth like a young child not telling the truth.
> 
> Seemed more shifty than pained to me.


Clearly Tyler's LIFE has been cycling. Nobody could act normal when they are essentially telling the world about this secret. I am sure that he had a million thoughts racing through his head when he was questioned. Geez. It has to be very uncomfortable for him to do an interview like this.

He did seem very shifty and awkward. I tend to think it was nerves.

I am wondering WHY he decided to go on TV to do this interview though. Motives? I did NOT like how 60 Minutes threw in a plug for his book. That was no bueno and cheapened it a bit for me. Maybe that was the deal??

Now where's MY WHITE LUNCH BAG?!?


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

rydbyk said:


> Now where's MY WHITE LUNCH BAG?!?


Exactly where's "MY WHITE LUNCH BAG". 

I gotta hard day ahead of me and I could really use it.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Len J said:


> Fair.
> 
> Given the choice at 19 to possibly be best in the world and the cost of admission is to dope or go home, I'd suspect I would have doped. In hindsight, I'd hope I wouldn't, but at 19.......I think I would bow to the pressure.
> 
> Len


Uh, you might surprise your 19 year old self had you actually been in that predicament. 

When I had reached the point of being "competitive" with the 1-2 girls, I was offered that choice. There were a few factors in the decision but I decided to take my little bike and go home.

I was more competitive with myself than other riders, and I didn't want to compete against a fake me.

Tyler made a comment that he and the others merely "got caught" while Armstrong didn't. And, that if he (Tyler) had not been caught, he would still be out there doping today. Interesting. Obviously the "moral issue" of doping to many of these guys is a secondary notion. Primarily, it's an accepted job requirement. And getting away with it means you are doing your job better than the hapless sop who didn't.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> Uh, you might surprise your 19 year old self had you actually been in that predicament.
> 
> When I had reached the point of being "competitive" with the 1-2 girls, I was offered that choice. There were a few factors in the decision but I decided to take my little bike and go home.
> 
> ...


Those of you who were strong enough in yourself to say no deserve kudos..........you sure were raised right.

I'm just trying to put myself in that age, having that opportunity, having worked so hard.........I can certainly understand the decision and the resultant conspiracy of silence....especialy when everything was so systemic. I suspect I would have done it and then regretted it.

I've always admired riders that "took their bike and went home" either like you before they doped, or like others, after they doped and realized their mistake. Takes a lot of "sense of self" to walk away from something that is so much of who you are. The 19 YO Len J didn't have that "sens of self"

I've had dinner a couple of times with riders that left Europe because they didn't want to dope........in both cases, listening to them tell their stories, it was a near thing.....and a very heart wrenching decision.

Must be hell to have your dreams crushed.

Len


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

bikerjulio said:


> No Lance here on Canukistan. NSA/Farm workers/Al Sharpton. And I watches spechul.


Nor in NH, USA - WTH?!


----------



## cyclelogic72 (Dec 1, 2006)

Interesting, too, will be how Armstrong's sponsors--Nike, Giro, Oakley, Trek, being the predominant ones; he also has a personal ownership stake in SRAM, Honey Stinger, and FRS--will handle the fallout from this point onward (assuming things get even worse for Armstrong). Less than 24hrs post-_60 Minutes_ and Nike have thrown their first salvo in the PR war:

"Our relationship with Lance remains as strong as ever,” the statement reads. “We are proud to work with him and support his foundation. Nike does not condone the use of banned substances *and Lance has been unwavering on that position as well*."

From what unicorn-populated land have the PR flacks at Nike plucked that last statement?? As most fans of pro cycling are well aware, in general terms Armstrong has _never _been an outspoken anti-doping voice. Armstrong _has_ been unwavering about his own 'clean' record, of course, but the Nike statement implies more. Nonsense.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nike-lance-armstrong-relationship-remains-191082


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

pigpen said:


> Did Tyler's eyes tell a story too.
> 
> Could have been pain the the answers he provided or lack of conviction (lying) by not looking at the interviewer. His eyes flicked back and forth like a young child not telling the truth.
> 
> Seemed more shifty than pained to me.


It was painful to Hamilton because it was public humiliation. All of his victories, all of those who are close to him that he lied to, the destruction of his marriage, probably the feeling of shaming his family. Those were not lying eyes, but one who is not used to being humilated in public. The guy has problems, you could read it in his demeanor, but he has no reason now to lie that he DOPED, barring the meager sales of a tell all book would bring Tyler Hamilton. Remember cycling is a fringe sport in America, and probably always will be that way.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Len J said:


> Those of you who were strong enough in yourself to say no deserve kudos..........you sure were raised right.
> 
> I'm just trying to put myself in that age, having that opportunity, having worked so hard.........I can certainly understand the decision and the resultant conspiracy of silence....especialy when everything was so systemic. I suspect I would have done it and then regretted it.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the kind kudos but you give me too much credit. I was a fairly lost little girl at that age, and definitely did not have a strong sense of self. But yes, cheating was a line I would not cross. 

And yeah, cycling, training and racing was my life. Cycling was the first "sense of self" I ever knew. So I'm grateful for it. I loved the sport, everything about it... from the funny little shoes to killing myself mile after mile. It was all I knew. You're right, it was hell to give it up. 

In that way, I can understand the choice to dope for these guys, but still it is the wrong one.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*why?*

WTF does a single person feel sorry for Tyler or Floyd or really any of them?

The doped, they lied about it for years and now, they want a book deal and retire.

BS, they are liars, they doped, so what?


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

cyclelogic72 said:


> From what unicorn-populated land have the PR flacks at Nike plucked that last statement?? [/url]



From the land of damage control.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

ttug said:


> WTF does a single person feel sorry for Tyler or Floyd or really any of them?
> 
> The doped, they lied about it for years and now, they want a book deal and retire.
> 
> BS, they are liars, they doped, so what?




Who says we feel sorry for these guys? 

I don't feel sorry for them, but neither do I take any retributive satisfaction in watching these guys fall down and go boom. 

I agree though, being "rewarded" with book deals leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Some of these guys have ruined not only their own lives, but have destroyed others' as well. It's one thing to go for the throat when someone falsely accuses you, that I understand...but to unashamedly torch innocent people to save your own lying @ss...well, I just don't understand this level of sleezeball.


----------



## norton55 (Jan 10, 2006)

I blame Nike. Just look at the track records of the people they sponsor. Less than stellar in my opinion.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> Thank you for the kind kudos but you give me too much credit. I was a fairly lost little girl at that age, and definitely did not have a strong sense of self. But yes, cheating was a line I would not cross.
> 
> And yeah, cycling, training and racing was my life. Cycling was the first "sense of self" I ever knew. So I'm grateful for it. I loved the sport, everything about it... from the funny little shoes to killing myself mile after mile. It was all I knew. You're right, it was hell to give it up.
> 
> In that way, I can understand the choice to dope for these guys, but still it is the wrong one.


Closest I came was in HS, I was an emerging elite runner in a very small world of running (Pre Frank Shorter, I think less than 500 people ran Boston when I did)....best HS marathon time etc. Running was who I was, it was the only athletic thing I had ever been good at, and maybe could have been great. It was also my escape from some not so good family stuff. at 17, a doctor told me I had degenerative arthritis in my hips & If I wanted to walk when I was 40 I needed to stop running immediatly. I did stop.......but I came very close to not...It was one of the hardest decisions I ever made...If it was something less tangible in terms of LT effect, not so sure I would have stopped.

The only people that can really say what they would do in the case of doping are those that have actually done it IMO. Everything else is a guess.

Len


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> I agree though, being "rewarded" with book deals leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.


At the moment, this is just a Fabiani talking point.

Usually the way it works is that a media revelation is timed to the simultaneous release of a book. Now, maybe the alleged book's printing will coincide with the conclusion of Armstrong's trial, but that's pretty far-fetched.


----------



## dbonbass (May 19, 2009)

Here's what the interviewer thought of the interview.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064874-10391709.html


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

ttug said:


> WTF does a single person feel sorry for Tyler or Floyd or really any of them?
> 
> The doped, they lied about it for years and now, they want a book deal and retire.
> 
> BS, they are liars, they doped, so what?


If only we were all so perfect, living with the same life experiences and circumstances. 

It's easy to be critical while being on the outside. Cheating is not the right choice, but for them and their circumstance, maybe it was. What were their options? What did they have to lose? What did they have to gain?

Everyone's deck is stacked differently. In a world where it's acceptable and normal behavior I'd guess the vast majority would do the same. And yet, they're the same ones who weren't placed in that situation who speak out the loudest.

I do feel sorry for them, honestly. It's a shitty situation to be placed in. But it's even more shitty that some do the exact same things and are shown favoritism and achieve super-hero status while others watch their lives crumble all around them.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ttug said:


> WTF does a single person feel sorry for Tyler or Floyd or really any of them?
> 
> The doped, they lied about it for years and now, they want a book deal and retire.
> 
> BS, they are liars, they doped, so what?



Answer IMO..(I don't want to get "ttug'ed" here)

I watched the entire 60 Minutes special that featured Tyler last night.

He was confronted with quite a dilemma at a very young age. Either dope or find a new career essentially. He had invested a lot of time in training, travel, emotions etc etc etc up to that point. To reach the level he was at BEFORE the doping is amazing and takes MAJOR sacrifices IMO. You breathe, eat, sleep cycling. This is your world. Cycling.

Like he says "What would you have done?"

I don't know. I guess I can sympathize with him a bit

I am a little more frustrated with the "system" that has allowed doping to continue with such ease..but it all is a bummer.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

The 60 minutes Overtime segment was pretty good as well

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064874-10391709.html


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

ttug said:


> WTF does a single person feel sorry for Tyler or Floyd or really any of them?
> 
> The doped, they lied about it for years and now, they want a book deal and retire.
> 
> BS, they are liars, they doped, so what?


The reason I feel sorry for Tyler and Floyd is because they got nailed and lost everything, while guys who were doing the exact same thing got away free.

Did they deceive a lot of people, lie to us about their innocence, even lie to their families? Well, of course. It doesn't take a hero to come clean when a grand jury has subpoenaed you, but I don't think they are heroes. I'm happy to forgive them though.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Here's an embed. As they say in the movies.... "It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better."

<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50105252&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366948n" />

fc


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Len J said:


> Closest I came was in HS, I was an emerging elite runner in a very small world of running (Pre Frank Shorter, I think less than 500 people ran Boston when I did)....best HS marathon time etc. Running was who I was, it was the only athletic thing I had ever been good at, and maybe could have been great. It was also my escape from some not so good family stuff. at 17, a doctor told me I had degenerative arthritis in my hips & If I wanted to walk when I was 40 I needed to stop running immediatly. I did stop.......but I came very close to not...It was one of the hardest decisions I ever made...If it was something less tangible in terms of LT effect, not so sure I would have stopped.
> 
> The only people that can really say what they would do in the case of doping are those that have actually done it IMO. Everything else is a guess.
> 
> Len



Gee whiz, Len. I remember you have a running background but somehow missed the fact fact that you had such talent and success at it. 

I think that is perhaps a more hellish loss...in that you really had no (logical) choice, other than to pack it up. 

I've often said, that for most of the world's population (those not born under the Midas Star), life is a series of losses with a few successes along the way born of hard work, perseverance, and help from those around us. I suppose those few "wins" are all the more sweet because of it. 

Wins based on lies and cheating at whatever we endeavor to do in life, are meaningless at best imho. 

The dopers it would seem, are not able to deal with the potential loss of their life's ambition and change course accordingly. 

The last two years have definitely dampened my enthusiasm for pro bike racing. If I watch it now, I look at it as fairy tale entertainment.

I remember either it was last year or the year before, you were asking me how I could stomach LA's @sshole attitude. If, Tyler's allegations are true (duh), then what was to me just a show of "_on the battlefield @sshatedness_" (which I loved seeing), has devolved into something I see as very sinister. It's one thing to dope and deny doping, it's quite another to destroy people's lives to protect your lies, and _not care._

Jury is still out but really...duh.


----------



## hawker12 (Oct 19, 2003)

kiwisimon said:


> Oh and TREK sucks with their bullying of GL. Wankers treated him like the poohy end of a stick cause he was calling their golden boy a cheat and drug taker. Screw them.



Agreed! +1


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

CabDoctor said:


> The 60 minutes Overtime segment was pretty good as well
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064874-10391709.html


I really do not know much about Scott Pelley, but when he says "there is no joy in this..for any of us..who have worked on this story...quite the opposite", I think BS!!! 

This is a reporter's dream come true. If it bleeds it leads! Yeeehaww.


----------



## erj549 (Jul 26, 2008)

Len J said:


> I was actually impressed with Tyler.
> 
> Clearly, 60 Minutes wanted to make it all about Armstrong.....tyler was consistant in answering yes, we all did it that way, I did it too. For Tyler it was less about Armstrong than the systemic use.
> 
> ...


There was an additional piece on the 60 minutes website where they interviewed Scott Pelley about the interview. They talked about Tyler's insistence on shifting blame to everyone, not just making it about Lance. I guess that part didn't make the televised part because it wasn't sensational enough.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

MaddSkillz said:


> If only we were all so perfect, living with the same life experiences and circumstances.
> 
> It's easy to be critical while being on the outside. Cheating is not the right choice, but for them and their circumstance, maybe it was. What were their options? What did they have to lose? What did they have to gain?
> 
> ...


Very good post imo... especially the last sentence.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

kiwisimon said:


> Oh and TREK sucks with their bullying of GL. Wankers treated him like the poohy end of a stick cause he was calling their golden boy a cheat and drug taker. Screw them.


With you on that bro. Trek did the wrong thing kicking Greg to the curb like they did. When this is said and done,Trek will look like the fool for riding the Lance money train.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

francois said:


> Here's an embed. As they say in the movies.... "It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better."
> 
> 
> fc


Thanks FC!


----------



## b-rad2 (Dec 8, 2006)

Guilty, guilty, guilty. And it kills me to say so. Here's my hero going down, as they always do. 

I'll contend there hasn't been a clean champion in ages. At lease Lance used his fame for good in the fight of cancer. 

I love the sport, but it's a joke. We're all just WWF fans now.


----------



## b-rad2 (Dec 8, 2006)

Pelley's an a$$. 

Will never forgive him for the interview of that Haditha shooting a few years ago.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

High Gear said:


> With you on that bro. Trek did the wrong thing kicking Greg to the curb like they did. When this is said and done,Trek will look like the fool for riding the Lance money train.


Agreed, BUT when you look into the peloton, nearly every legit bike manu is represented. I am assuming they all KNOW that doping is occuring within the team and they just cross their fingers that nobody gets caught. Note: Please don't edumacate me on the small companies that are still "legit" and are not represented in the peleton but wish they were..)

What I am trying to point out is simply that many BIG companies "support" doping like Trek has.

They know. What Trek apparently did to GL was downright dirty though. Never liked that company...well actually I did own one way back in 1990..


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

b-rad2 said:


> Guilty, guilty, guilty. And it kills me to say so. Here's my hero going down, as they always do.
> 
> I'll contend there hasn't been a clean champion in ages. At lease Lance used his fame for good in the fight of cancer.
> 
> I love the sport, but it's a joke. We're all just WWF fans now.


Here is the thing.

If you set aside the morality issue for a minute.

All of these guys are genetic mutants. 

All of them work their butts off training. What PEDS do mostly is improve recovery and allow one to train harder, longer, more frequently. But, that means they have to work harder to take advantage of the PEDS. It's not a free lunch. It's not staged. 

Sure Blood doping gives them a boost mid stage race, but they still have to do the training to be in a position where that matters. 

What bothers me about the doping thing is 2 fold:

1.) The rider with the best doctors can buy an advantage.

2.) More importantly (at least to me), the arms race creates a systemic environment where young riders are put at risk just to compete, while others get rich off them.

3.) The pretending they are all lilly white.

IMO

Len


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

b-rad2 said:


> Guilty, guilty, guilty. And it kills me to say so. Here's my hero going down, as they always do.
> 
> I'll contend there hasn't been a clean champion in ages. At lease Lance used his fame for good in the fight of cancer.
> 
> I love the sport, but it's a joke. We're all just WWF fans now.


Lance could have started up the Livestrong cancer thing even if he came in 2nd or 3rd if he would have rode clean. Coming back from cancer, having your body cut on, your head cut open and brains scooped out and even finishing the tour is pretty amazing. 

But the lying about the doping and all the press conferences where he went on record saying he never doped. All that lying he did in France. All the people he's tried to discredit and made to look like they were crackpots. It's going to be hard to stand up in front of an audience and ask them to forgive him. Perhaps if he takes a page out this guys playbook he might be able to keep the money rolling.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> I really do not know much about Scott Pelley, but when he says "there is no joy in this..for any of us..who have worked on this story...quite the opposite", I think BS!!!
> 
> This is a reporter's dream come true. If it bleeds it leads! Yeeehaww.


Agreed, it is a BS line. 

Scott and his team have lots of info on the Foundation. They are well aware that the "Done a lot of good' line is garbage. They also interviewed close to a dozen people who did not appear on TV. People who were smeared by Armstrong and his buddies. 

They know the truth and already working on part 2


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

asmoqueen said:


> I hate people who say this garbage. Doping is immoral, it is wrong, and it is theft. The mere fact that theres one Scott Mercier PROVES it's theft, who knows what he could have done in a clean sport, but dopers stole that from him, because he IS a hero, he IS someone we should look up to. It's a situation where we have thieves and we don't even know what they stole or who they stole it from. People have the right to compete in a clean sport, otherwise what's the point, it IS all fake then, it IS WWF if there is doping as rampant and systemic as there is in cycling.
> 
> I don't know about you but little boys and girls shouldn't have to think, well to compete in a sport I'm going to need to use drugs. That's wrong. That's what people have to tell their kids, if you want to be a pro bike racer, well you're going to need to dope.
> 
> The reality is these dopers didn't just steal money or fame, but they stole experiences, emotions and careers from people who aren't scum, like Scott Mercier. Stop telling people it would all be the same if there would be no doping, that Lance would have won all those tours, thats a bald face lie. Lance didn't win ANYTHING his entire life, if he was doping, except a ticket straight to the slammer with other great scam artists like Bernie Maddoff.


 
And you clearly missed my point entirely.:mad2: Read my answer in the context of what I was responding to and maybe you'll get it.

I wasn't either defending doping, nor was I saying it was OK.... but if you read my post with anything other than your own bias, you would have seen that.

Len


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

Wrong, WAS ingrained. 



High Gear said:


> Doping has gotten so ingrained in pro cycling, .


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

asmoqueen said:


> Do you usually resort to personal attacks?
> 
> Seems like a similar tactic to Lance Armstrongs usual load of garbage.


LOL...You hate me and I'm the one making a personal attack...OK then.

If you read and understood my post you wouldn't have responded as you did.

len


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

asmoqueen said:


> 18,000 posts and you've never been......


 
It's all clear to me now.

Len


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

asmoqueen said:


> Do you usually resort to personal attacks?
> 
> Seems like a similar tactic to Lance Armstrongs usual load of garbage.


How is stating that you missed the point and asking you to re-read the post in context a personal attack? 

Especially in the light of you starting out with "I hate people......"


----------



## MtZoncolan (May 22, 2011)

Len J said:


> Here is the thing.
> 
> If you set aside the morality issue for a minute.
> 
> ...


+1 Well said Len. :thumbsup: 

Too bad your point is lost on many "lilly white" 's.:mad2:


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Agreed, BUT when you look into the peloton, nearly every legit bike manu is represented. I am assuming they all KNOW that doping is occuring within the team and they just cross their fingers that nobody gets caught. Note: Please don't edumacate me on the small companies that are still "legit" and are not represented in the peleton but wish they were..)
> 
> What I am trying to point out is simply that many BIG companies "support" doping like Trek has.
> 
> They know. What Trek apparently did to GL was downright dirty though. Never liked that company...well actually I did own one way back in 1990..


Let's be frank - Lemond wasn't going to sell bikes. Armstrong was and he did. Their feud was bad for TREK's business. They had to pick sides - not surprisingly, they sided with Armstrong. In what world do you live in where the company decides to go with Lemond over Armstrong? 

Besides, Lemond is a crazy loose cannon and dealing with him would be a pain in the ass for so many reasons not related to doping or Armstrong.


----------

