# Bicycling Magazine- Armstrong doped



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI_LANCE.pdf

A surprisingly detailed story from Bill Strickland about how he finally came to terms with the fact that Armstrong is a doper. 

He does make a few mistakes though. Not sure if I would count Ferrari, Popo, and Livingston as in Armstrong's camp. The threat of long prison terms can pull the truth out of many....none of those guys is Greg Anderson.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

*"It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning."*

Holy ****.

So you got a Senior Writer in what can be considered the "Sports Illustrated" of cycling giving tacit acknowledgement that he got an admission. 

As far as Im concerned, its over. Time for Armstrong to do that press conference.....


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

This is gonna be a fun thread to read. Go at it boys!


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

RkFast said:


> what can be considered the "Sports Illustrated" of cycling


That's funny! 
I didn't know Bicycling was known for it's well-written literary journalism. I thought it was just the same 10 puff-pieces and bike ads year after year. 

Oh wait, it is.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Ok, I'll say it. Strickland is a bitter hater.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Out of all of Armstrong's biographers, I always though Bill Strickland was the most balanced in his approach. Then again, I like the way he writes. *Ten Points* is a great, if disturbing in parts, read.

I guess Bill is off Lance's Christmas card list.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I would not be surprised at all if this is the first in a long line of slow "admissions" by Armstrong. Who is Strickland talking about when referencing the admission? He of course doesn't say. I would not be surprised if it is an Armstrong confident and this is a long-term PR strategy that will unfold over time so that Armstrong can admit to doping with a softened blow in the eyes of the general public.

Strickland makes a similar argument to one I've made on here. Strickland suggests Armstrong would be viewed as a cycling hero even if he doped. He might be right. I have argued that Armstrong would be viewed as a hero if he just admitted it, explained the way it was in cycling--which is not exactly a secret or in question at this point--and help try to clean it up.

One of the interesting ways Strickland analyses everything, which I think is a little misleading, is to talk about specific allegations and what will be needed for them to stick and be "proof." But--what about the sum of the evidence? That is what is so damning, not any one piece, but everything considered together. Strickland has an outline for one hell of a closing argument against Armstrong already.

Overall I believe this was a nice article, pretty balance in terms of his viewpoints and opinions.


----------



## carlislegeorge (Mar 28, 2004)

as a fan of good journalism, imho too bad this was just a long winded tease of a story. possibly even written to sell copies of a new book? personally, i don't care if lance did or didn't. it doesn't really change his status of greatest ever.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

covenant said:


> That's funny!
> I didn't know Bicycling was known for it's well-written literary journalism. I thought it was just the same 10 puff-pieces and bike ads year after year.
> 
> Oh wait, it is.


We all know the type of content it has. I, myself havent read it in years. But the fact is Bicycling Magazine can be considered one of the primary print media outlets covering all things cycling. And it just took a side on the issue. Thats huge.


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

Wow, the vitriol is starting to fly on the Bicycling comments section. This one really turned my stomach:


> *Innocent Until Proven Guilty*
> Bill, my name is Kenneth, and I wish to tell you I registered today for one purpose and one purpose only. I hope you rot in Hell after you die Bill! Lance Armstrong has never tested positive on a drug test. In the United States of America, a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd hand accusations from proven liars or anonymous sources does not constitute proof of guilt. Bill, I hope Mr. Armstrong sues the asses off of you and Bicycling magazine for writing and publishing this derivative, sophomoric crap of yours...you BASTARD!


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

ragweed said:


> Wow, the vitriol is starting to fly on the Bicycling comments section. This one really turned my stomach:


What's up with your stomach? Did you remember how you helped Glenn Beck to rape and murder a young girl in 1990?  

That is to say the commenter has a point. It is cheesy to do what Strickland did. Armstrong avoided any Spanish beef, so good for him.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

The person commenting might miss the whole point. Armstrong's PR folks could well be orchestrating this. It would in fact be their best strategy. He is "going down" if the issue is whether doping will be exposed. He and his people probably know that. 

So what do you do? You manage it. And he will be able to do so in my estimation. Cycling fans know what was going on anyway, and as Strickland points out the cycling world has forgiven the cycling greats. The general public will forgive Armstrong if he gives them the chance. In the U.S. in particular, the general public wants him to be a hero and from an outside perspective there is lot more good about Armstrong and his charities than bad. (Insiders may have a very, very different viewpoint and for legitimate reasons.)

What Armstrong must avoid is prison time for lying in front of a grand jury. Or getting indicted after he shows up to testify and takes the 5th amendment on dozens and dozens of questions. 

What will piss me off is Armstrong admits as little as possible. He has a chance to come forward and try to improve cycling. He would be viewed as a hero in the U.S. for what he has done, and probably for "trying to clean up that European sport." People in the general public will see the facts as they want to support their opinions and beliefs if those opinions and beliefs are strong enough--and they are. 

I want him to admit it, admit it all without reservations, talk about the culture and the necessity of doping at that time to win, and say it is time to really clean it up. That is the right thing to do.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

I don't think Lance can afford to come clean. By his own choosing, this has become bigger than him. I think that lawyers will end up spending a decade on fighting this off. By the time this is resolved, nobody will care.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

```

```



DZfan14 said:


> I don't think Lance can afford to come clean. By his own choosing, this has become bigger than him. I think that lawyers will end up spending a decade on fighting this off. By the time this is resolved, nobody will care.


He is certainly in a bad position given the years of staunch, unconditional denials to the many allegations made against him. It is not easy to "manage" the situation. But Michael Jackson stayed a superstar after much, much worse. It can be done. 

The key in my opinion is whether he can find a way to keep his titles. From what I've seen posted on here I've become a believer than the UCI may be corrupt enough for that to happen. And what can they do anyway? Virtually all the top people were doping. It isn't practical to give the titles to the next guy in line.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Gatorback said:


> The person commenting might miss the whole point. Armstrong's PR folks could well be orchestrating this. It would in fact be their best strategy. He is "going down" if the issue is whether doping will be exposed. He and his people probably know that.
> 
> So what do you do? You manage it. And he will be able to do so in my estimation. Cycling fans know what was going on anyway, and as Strickland points out the cycling world has forgiven the cycling greats. The general public will forgive Armstrong if he gives them the chance. In the U.S. in particular, the general public wants him to be a hero and from an outside perspective there is lot more good about Armstrong and his charities than bad. (Insiders may have a very, very different viewpoint and for legitimate reasons.)
> 
> ...


This could very well be partly orchestrated by Armstrong's PR machine. Its a drip approach, and it could work.

On the second point I completely agree. LA does the mea culpa, comes clean, and he remains a hero. If we can "forgive" and embrace someone like Charlie effing Sheen, or a Mike Vick, we can forgive Lance. But....if he takes the Roger Clemens tact, which is very possible, it will hurt him in the long run.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> He would be viewed as a hero in the U.S. for what he has done, and probably for "trying to clean up that European sport."


Exactly. Meanwhile, over in Europe, we'll continue to shake our heads in amused disbelief.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

In the article Strickland talks about people who told him about how they saw Lance dope, delivered him drugs, etc. None would go on the record. Bill should have explained why. 

Perhaps for his next story Bill can write about all the people who did tell the truth, and were smeared and harassed for it?


----------



## cinelliguy (Jan 4, 2011)

Two words...prove it.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

the earth is flat, but full of sink holes


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Gatorback said:


> The person commenting might miss the whole point. Armstrong's PR folks could well be orchestrating this. It would in fact be their best strategy. He is "going down" if the issue is whether doping will be exposed. He and his people probably know that.
> 
> So what do you do? You manage it. And he will be able to do so in my estimation. Cycling fans know what was going on anyway, and as Strickland points out the cycling world has forgiven the cycling greats. The general public will forgive Armstrong if he gives them the chance. In the U.S. in particular, the general public wants him to be a hero and from an outside perspective there is lot more good about Armstrong and his charities than bad. (Insiders may have a very, very different viewpoint and for legitimate reasons.)
> 
> ...


Preferably, while coming from his experience in cycling, it won't be limited to cycling. Take the point of "this is what I _had _to do, but I want to try and fix it so your sons and daughters don't have to."


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I noticed that in the "chart of implication" Bill missed a couple of riders, most notably G. Totschning.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

cinelliguy said:


> Two words...prove it.


http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

cinelliguy said:


> Two words...prove it.


I agree.

Years and years of "Well, he HAD to be doping, because ______" and "so and so says he heard from such and such that he/she saw Lance shooting EPO..or whatever" 

A bunch of speculation until someone can actually prove that he was doping or did actually dope. Lance-haters can (and do) say and point to all kinds of reasons why it had to be so...but nobody can say..."Here, here is proof that Lance doped, look at this evidence...He took this ______ on this date"

Show me the results. It's like excuses in racing..."I really won that race, but so and so cut me off" "He had to be doping to beat ME...I am the strongest guy"...fine stuff, thees type excuses and statements...but where are the results? The Proof?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Gnarly 928 said:


> A bunch of speculation until someone can actually prove that he was doping or did actually dope. Lance-haters can (and do) say and point to all kinds of reasons why it had to be so...but nobody can say..*."Here, here is proof that Lance doped, look at this evidence*...He took this ______ on this date"


http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Gnarly 928 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Years and years of "Well, he HAD to be doping, because ______" and "so and so says he heard from such and such that he/she saw Lance shooting EPO..or whatever"
> 
> ...


This is a total mischaracterization of Strickland's case against Armstrong and shows how far in the sand some people are willing to stick their heads. Just tap your heels together and repeat after me, _Lance never failed a test, Lance never failed a test, Lance never failed a test,..._


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

kbwh said:


> Exactly. Meanwhile, over in Europe, we'll continue to shake our heads in amused disbelief.


I'm curious regarding how Europeans look at Armstrong and past cycling greats who have admitted to doping. Obviously Europeans are in general more savvy about cycling, but it seems many who doped are forgiven. 

Do they view Armstrong differently than the other riders who doped? Is it because he won't fess up to it when it is now obvious.

On another note, a guy like Landis is the hero to me. Sure he lied in the past--he did what they all do--but the easy way out for him is to just not bother with this and don't buck the system. It is much harder to take a stand like he is now doing. And a lot of good can come from it.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Gatorback said:


> The person commenting might miss the whole point. Armstrong's PR folks could well be orchestrating this. It would in fact be their best strategy. He is "going down" if the issue is whether doping will be exposed. He and his people probably know that.
> 
> So what do you do? You manage it. And he will be able to do so in my estimation. Cycling fans know what was going on anyway, and as Strickland points out the cycling world has forgiven the cycling greats. The general public will forgive Armstrong if he gives them the chance. In the U.S. in particular, the general public wants him to be a hero and from an outside perspective there is lot more good about Armstrong and his charities than bad. (Insiders may have a very, very different viewpoint and for legitimate reasons.)
> 
> ...


I think you may be right on this being a strategy, but I doubt his ability to spin it to such a degree that he can appear to be for cleaning up the sport. This is like OJ going after the real murderers. I don't think the general public can suspend their disbelief to that degree.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Bicycling Magazine*

I have had less than pleasant conversations with Mr Strickland as I believe, he is whats wrong with cycling media, its jaded and unaware of actual cycling and sleeps with every sponsor willing to spend bucks. That stated, I do not hate the man. Bicycling Magazine, having published this is not surprising. Its popular now to say the cycluists dope. Those of us who have followed the sport siince the 70's know that doping is a reality, I am of a very specific opinion , that they all dope, others are not, thats fine.

\Bicycling at one point dropped coverage iof a few GT's OTHER than the TDF and I was told, not many people know about the Giro or who Bernard Hinault was, BY Mr Strickland, so **** em. This is to raise circulation od his magazine and thats fine. 

If we all find out what is possibly the biggest no kidding fact in cycling, Lance doped. 

Lots of folks get passionate about this, and thats fine, but **** them too. I love to ride bikes, I love the sport BUT the reality is, performance that becomes a spectacle by todays standards is pharma on display and yet, I still watch, its fun to watch, but lets not think its all natural, cause, IMO, it aint natural


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I really don't like how doping was/is/will be part of the sport, but at a certain point, I just let it go and hope testers get better. I'm not defending Armstrong by any means, but if we're going to scrutinize him, how deep should we go down the GC to be fair? How should we punish the testers or race promoters for looking the other way? Should we also keep going back and test whatever is left from the years prior to Armstrong? I'm all for justice, but I don't think there are too many innocent parties in this equation. It's easy to hate on Armstrong, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch to realize it goes WAAAY deeper than just him. 

As someone joked in another thread, we might as well hand all the awards to Moncoutie!


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

davidka said:


> I noticed that in the "chart of implication" Bill missed a couple of riders, most notably G. Totschning.


Can you explain how Totschnig is relevant to this, please?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I really don't like how doping was/is/will be part of the sport, but at a certain point, I just let it go and hope testers get better. I'm not defending Armstrong by any means, but if we're going to scrutinize him, how deep should we go down the GC to be fair? How should we punish the testers or race promoters for looking the other way? Should we also keep going back and test whatever is left from the years prior to Armstrong? I'm all for justice, but I don't think there are too many innocent parties in this equation. It's easy to hate on Armstrong, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch to realize it goes WAAAY deeper than just him.
> 
> As someone joked in another thread, we might as well hand all the awards to Moncoutie!


Agreed, the issue is way deeper then just Armstrong....far, far, deeper. He is just one guy. True, many riders felt compelled to keep up with his methods but there are DS's and Doctors who have done far more damage to the sport then Lance. 

The reason why we continue to see detailed articles about his doping is because when it comes to Lance there are still millions of people who ignore the obvious and pretend he rode clean. While much of what Bill wrote is old news to people here to a large percentage of the public it will be a shock to them. Like the WSJ was, and SI was and 60 Minutes will be. 

As more friends, suppliers, etc. turn on him it will just get worse. Bill wrote in his piece that Popo, Ferrari, and Livingston where on his side.....I would not be so sure of that.


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

The article is typical of Bicycling. A late rehash of old news, a shallow and meaningless article and an author who is doing nothing more than "getting in touch with his feelings". Makes me wonder if the guy has a period every 28 days or so.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

orange_julius said:


> Can you explain how Totschnig is relevant to this, please?


Another doper facing charges.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

The drip approach is an interesting theory, and one thats plausible if LA knows the '99 tour samples aren't clean. The litmus test will be to see if this opens the doors to similar articles in other cycling publications and websites.....


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Finally gotten around to reading the "preview". I was waiting for the issue to come in the mail. I know, I know... but the subscription cost $1 and it makes for light bathroom reading.

I thought Bill did a pretty decent job of putting the whole Armstrong phenomenon into a personal perspective, given that seems to be where the battle lines are being drawn. It's a pretty big thing to go from a biographer described by the Hog as "one of us" to a "troll", so cut the guy some slack. He works for what is likely the biggest pro-Armstrong bike magazines in the world, and has been a fan for decades. He has to put this whole thing in perspective for all those Bicycling readers out there that are reading the article while making the weighty choice of which beach cruiser to buy. Most people would be absolutely bored to tears with a simple rehashing of all of the facts and figures. If that was all there was to it, there would be no debate. It's all of those intangibles that knot people up about it, the whole cancer and hero thing, and make it less than cut and dry for most people.

Am I a Lance Armstrong fan? Not really. I have the majority of the biographies and autobiographies, but then again I have most books from the Barnes and Noble shelf about cycling. I like reading about it. It was all of those biographies that probably made me like him less as a person, although probably helped me understand his drive to become and remain a champion a little better. Right now I'm pretty much left in the middle, where I can't look back at the performances of Armstrong, Pantani, Landis, or any pro cyclist of any era without viewing them as doped (as much as the technology of their time allowed). How much I know now, and how much I don't know, has affected how I view the sport. For me, it would be better if I was still ignorant. I don't understand how so many people can unconditionally love or hate the guy, given that very few seem to actually know him in any real sense. I just don't that riled up about people I have never met.

What I still believe is that not much good will come from taking Lance down in a very public way- especially in the US. Dopers will still dope, and will likely get away with it if they're smart. The big sponsors will shy away from the sport (as if they don't already), and big stage races in California, Colorado, and New Mexico will likely be a distant memory. Fewer US-based pro teams (conti and above) will likely be around, because there will be fewer races on this continent for them to compete in (thanks UCI!). Will taking Armstrong down do any lasting good? I don't see it. YMMV.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

Why did he even bother to write that long winded piece about his own thoughts on Lance's potential to have doped? Who cares what he thinks. I think his mag is jibberish. Should I write an article on that and publish it?

Trek cancel their ads?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

biobanker said:


> Why did he even bother to write that long winded piece about his own thoughts on Lance's potential to have doped? Who cares what he thinks. I think his mag is jibberish. Should I write an article on that and publish it?


The article wasn't wasn't written for you. The article is more for the target audience of Bicycling, the Armstrong faithful, and the clueless (who can be one in the same at times). As even the most anti-Lance magazine readily admits, Armstrong's face and name sells issues- even on the thinnest of pretenses. In today's print media market, you go with what sells.

As a Lance biographer, he was closer than most to Armstrong's world. As far as I know, he's the first biographer that wrote a pro-Lance book to come out and say, "yeah, I think Lance doped". He drank the Koolaid, and then publicly spit it out. Not an easy thing to do, from what I can tell. Certainly seems to be a fairly unique perspective.

As far as it being "his magazine", while he is an editor-at-large for Bicycling, but that's a long way from being in charge of content from issue to issue. At his point, basically he writes an article here or there, does an online blog, reviews a few things, and waxes rhapsodic about Rapha. He is a cyclist, and races fairly often. He organizes a cross series, rides track from time to time... pretty much all the things many of the "serious" cycling journalists don't do anymore.

If you can get your article published, go right ahead and write it. I personally wouldn't mind being published in Bicycling (or any other cycling magazine), simply because I think it would be kinda cool to have something I wrote on the newstands. Even if it was published by a magazine that I don't really respect and relegate to the bathroom, it still would be cool.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

Alaska Mike said:


> The article wasn't wasn't written for you. The article is more for the target audience of Bicycling, the Armstrong faithful, and the clueless (who can be one in the same at times). As even the most anti-Lance magazine readily admits, Armstrong's face and name sells issues- even on the thinnest of pretenses. In today's print media market, you go with what sells.
> 
> .


+1 

And even still there are those out there who aren't clueless but are still in denial. It's almost like believing that Al Capone was innocent until he got busted for his taxes.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

DZfan14 said:


> +1
> 
> And even still there are those out there who aren't clueless but are still in denial. It's almost like believing that Al Capone was innocent until he got busted for his taxes.


And Al Capone is a great analogy because after all, as you say he got busted for his taxes ;-).


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

DZfan14 said:


> +1
> 
> And even still there are those out there who aren't clueless but are still in denial. It's almost like believing that Al Capone was innocent until he got busted for his taxes.


But Al Capone did so much good for so many people. 

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1979/2/1979_2_82.shtml

_"Surprisingly, a large segment of the public seemed to share Capone’s view of himself as the pleasurable benefactor. Though on one day Chicagoans might read with horror of the latest atrocity linked to his mob, on the next they might cheer his waving arrival at Charlestown Racetrack. In Evanston once, during a Northwestern University football game, an entire troop of Boy Scouts startled the crowd with the rousing cry “Yea, Al!” (He had bought them their tickets.) His fan mail was heavy. By some accounts, he was Chicago’s greatest philanthropist. At the pit of the Depression, he was said to have financed a South Side soup kitchen dispensing 20,000 free meals a week. People liked to remember things like that—and liked to forget just exactly what it was the big fellow did to afford such beneficence."_


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

pretender said:


> This is a total mischaracterization of Strickland's case against Armstrong and shows how far in the sand some people are willing to stick their heads. Just tap your heels together and repeat after me, _Lance never failed a test, Lance never failed a test, Lance never failed a test,..._


 

Ok..."Lance never failed a test...Lance never failed a test".....

Now, take your fingers out of your ears and listen again....Lance never failed a test.

There are probably a hundred+ long long articles, like the ones quoted just above in this thread, that make it sound like they have already proved Lance must have been doping..lots and lots of words...and they may even be somewhat true..But until the Guy's convicted, by real evidence and not just "He said-She said" by "journalistic license" and people with their own agendas making comments and suppositions, he is not (got your finger's out, yet?) repeat...Not a convicted doper..

He not a convicted anything till someone proves it with evidence of doping that is judged to be valid by the authorities...whoever the he** they are in this old time case. I don't think the RBR is the Supreme Court of Cycling, though, nor is any magazine or blog or whatever.

Shall I say it one more time? "Lance ___ ....." grin.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*so what*



Gnarly 928 said:


> Ok..."Lance never failed a test...Lance never failed a test".....
> 
> Now, take your fingers out of your ears and listen again....Lance never failed a test.
> 
> ...


Virenque never failed a test. Virenque never failed a test.

Virenque confessed to doping. Virenque confessed to doping


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ttug said:


> Virenque never failed a test. Virenque never failed a test.
> 
> Virenque confessed to doping. Virenque confessed to doping


A lot of them never got caught. I think that's part of the point. I guess where I get annoyed is when we focus on a single rider and ignore and forget about the rest.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Big-foot said:


> But Al Capone did so much good for so many people.
> 
> http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1979/2/1979_2_82.shtml
> 
> _"Surprisingly, a large segment of the public seemed to share Capone’s view of himself as the pleasurable benefactor. Though on one day Chicagoans might read with horror of the latest atrocity linked to his mob, on the next they might cheer his waving arrival at Charlestown Racetrack. In Evanston once, during a Northwestern University football game, an entire troop of Boy Scouts startled the crowd with the rousing cry “Yea, Al!” (He had bought them their tickets.) His fan mail was heavy. By some accounts, he was Chicago’s greatest philanthropist. At the pit of the Depression, he was said to have financed a South Side soup kitchen dispensing 20,000 free meals a week. People liked to remember things like that—and liked to forget just exactly what it was the big fellow did to afford such beneficence."_


 Maybe those who want so desperately to take Lance down ought to look at his taxes, then, or something. Boy! That seems a bit much, saying, "Lance is just like Al Capone..." Ya think? Really? That bad?

If everyone is so hot on busting him...doping proof hasn't been so easy to find, so just try something else...

Heck, trash him in the press or the Net for....... I dunno, maybe marital infidelity or something. I bet he cheated on his first wife....everyone else does. Or maybe he tore that tag off his mattress..you know "Do not remove this tag under penalty of law"? How about Postal Fraud?...Oh, wait, that one is already being tried isn't it? Get that guy behind bars....

The Justice Department..or whatever it was called back in Capone's day....They really had good reasons to get that Gangster off the street, cause he was having people killed and stuff. So they used whatever they could come up with to put him inside The Big House. 

If ol' Lance has been fooling 'a large segment' of us to make us admire him...He is as bad as Capone was......

Let's get him!........ any way we can...We HATE being fooled...(if we really are)


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Maybe those who want so desperately to take Lance down ought to look at his taxes, then, or something. Boy! That seems a bit much, saying, "Lance is just like Al Capone..." Ya think? Really? That bad?
> 
> If everyone is so hot on busting him...doping proof hasn't been so easy to find, so just try something else...
> 
> ...


Pretty much sums up my thoughts. The machine has been running for 10 years and will keep running until the guy is disgraced. Give us our pound of flesh!!!!!!!

Our government has been sending lives and treasure to the Middle East for 10 years and nobody gives a ****. But a guy maybe throws some charges into his ass-cheek to win a bike race and it's the crime of the century?

Put me in the "who cares" camp. I want a magnificent spectacle and warriors dying on their bikes with blood as sludgy as fresh maple syrup in the bucket.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed, the issue is way deeper then just Armstrong....far, far, deeper. He is just one guy. True, many riders felt compelled to keep up with his methods but there are DS's and Doctors who have done far more damage to the sport then Lance.
> 
> The reason why we continue to see detailed articles about his doping is because when it comes to Lance there are still millions of people who ignore the obvious and pretend he rode clean. While much of what Bill wrote is old news to people here to a large percentage of the public it will be a shock to them. Like the WSJ was, and SI was and 60 Minutes will be.
> 
> As more friends, suppliers, etc. turn on him it will just get worse. Bill wrote in his piece that Popo, Ferrari, and Livingston where on his side.....I would not be so sure of that.


This is a point that I have made numerous times and got e-beat up for it. Still....I agree 100%. Seems like the most common response to this was..."Yeah, but he stole millions using Livestrong....yadda yadda.."

And...no, he does not get a "free ticket" folks. Lets just spread the "weatlh" of hate a bit ok?

Again, if he had not won 7 times, then he would not be in this position today most likely. He is a big fish. Big fish get attention...both positive and negative.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

"If ol' Lance has been fooling 'a large segment' of us to make us admire him...He is as bad as Capone was......"

I wasn't implying that St. Lance of Austin is as evil as Capone. I was noting the parallel in public perception. If found guilty of all that has been discussed (fraud, trafficking of controlled substances, tax evasion, perjury, being an insufferable prick and a-hole, etc) then he maybe scores a 12 on the Capone scale, with 100 being the highest score available. Or maybe a 1/10 Madhoff, or a quarter to a half of a Martha Stewart.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

JohnHemlock said:


> Pretty much sums up my thoughts. The machine has been running for 10 years and will keep running until the guy is disgraced. Give us our pound of flesh!!!!!!!
> 
> Our government has been sending lives and treasure to the Middle East for 10 years and nobody gives a ****. But a guy maybe throws some charges into his ass-cheek to win a bike race and it's the crime of the century?
> 
> ...


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Gnarly 928 said:


> This 'pile-on' attitude concerning what Lance may have done, back in oh, say 1999...that is pretty sad. If guys like Bush and "People" (corporations like Wells Fargo are now people, according to the Bush supreme court decisions) like Wall Street can do what they've done without anyone hanging onto them like constipated rat terriers...demanding their pound of flesh...What's up with a minor player like Lance A. drawing so much fire?


Silly argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

yeah but which is the lesser of 2 evils???
do you even need to spend a second of your time to think on that?

micro problem mainly to only concerned cyclists compared to a macro problem that will eventually destroy this beautiful country...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Ok..."Lance never failed a test...Lance never failed a test".....
> 
> Now, take your fingers out of your ears and listen again....Lance never failed a test.
> 
> ...


Lance has failed many tests, 3 times for Testosterone, 7 for EPO, 1 for Cortisone. The correct chant is "Never been Sanctioned" 

Marion Jones, Basso, Scarboni, Valverde, Ullrich....there are lots of dopers who, unlike Lance, actually never failed a test.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Maybe those who want so desperately to take Lance down ought to look at his taxes, then, or something. Boy! That seems a bit much, saying, "Lance is just like Al Capone..." Ya think? Really? That bad?
> 
> If everyone is so hot on busting him...doping proof hasn't been so easy to find, so just try something else...
> 
> ...


I just want to clarify something. I didn't say Lance was as bad as Al Capone. But what I did say was that at this point it's not irrational to assume that he is guilty without proof. 

Just like the government couldn't prove Capone was doing what he was doing, they eventually got him on something else altogether. It doesn't mean he wasn't doing all of those other things.

Like someone else alluded to already in this thread; the hardcore Lance types will be alot like the hardcore Michael Jackson types. They don't have a blind eye to turn. They'll accept him as a cheater.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

Big-foot said:


> But Al Capone did so much good for so many people.
> 
> http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1979/2/1979_2_82.shtml
> 
> _"Surprisingly, a large segment of the public seemed to share Capone’s view of himself as the pleasurable benefactor. Though on one day Chicagoans might read with horror of the latest atrocity linked to his mob, on the next they might cheer his waving arrival at Charlestown Racetrack. In Evanston once, during a Northwestern University football game, an entire troop of Boy Scouts startled the crowd with the rousing cry “Yea, Al!” (He had bought them their tickets.) His fan mail was heavy. By some accounts, he was Chicago’s greatest philanthropist. At the pit of the Depression, he was said to have financed a South Side soup kitchen dispensing 20,000 free meals a week. People liked to remember things like that—and liked to forget just exactly what it was the big fellow did to afford such beneficence."_


I wasn't even thinking of that when I mentioned Al Capone, but that is a really interesting angle. I wonder if Lance used that line of thinking to rationalize what he was doing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance has failed many tests, 3 times for Testosterone, 7 for EPO, 1 for Cortisone. The correct chant is "Never been Sanctioned"


If this is true AND you have a credible source. Shame on THEM, not him.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

spade2you said:


> If this is true AND you have a credible source. Shame on THEM, not him.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_doping

All of the positive tests are, of course, under dispute. You can check all the various sources and draw your own conclusions.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

spade2you said:


> If this is true AND you have a credible source. Shame on THEM, not him.


Michael Ashenden is a credible source. Here's an interview that goes into details on the EPO tests of the '99 samples.

Excerpt:

AS: So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.

MA: Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria. ...


http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

The article also addresses other Lance myths further down.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

HikenBike said:


> Michael Ashenden is a credible source. Here's an interview that goes into details on the EPO tests of the '99 samples.
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> ...


It's about time somebody posted that link! :thumbsup:


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Jesus, that article ought to have it's own forum it gets posted so much around here! I keep waiting for armfuls of smoking guns but that is all anyone ever links to, it seems like.

The whole thing is a sham, when is everyone going to understand that? Contador got busted and is guilty as well. The UCI actually directed him to a doctor willing to stipulate that it was tainted meat. You think the UCI is appealing because they want him suspended?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> The key in my opinion is whether he can find a way to keep his titles.


Isn't the statute of limitations 7 years? Then he has 2 more years to go if he wants to keep his last 2 titles, 2004 and 2005.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Isn't the statute of limitations 7 years? Then he has 2 more years to go if he wants to keep his last 2 titles, 2004 and 2005.


Those would also be the most expensive for him to lose. He would have to give SCA back $7.5 million.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

carlislegeorge said:


> as a fan of good journalism, imho too bad this was just a long winded tease of a story. possibly even written to sell copies of a new book? personally, i don't care if lance did or didn't. it doesn't really change his status of greatest ever.


So you don't care if he is the best ever because he doped? but do you talk about other dopers? Come on the greatest ever, what a shallow mind. He is/was good one of the top riders, but never the best ever


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Anyone who thinks Lance was the best ever REALLY needs to study up on the history of racing.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*False*



malanb said:


> So you don't care if he is the best ever because he doped? but do you talk about other dopers? Come on the greatest ever, what a shallow mind. He is/was good one of the top riders, but never the best ever


Armstrong himself has declared that Eddy Merckx was the greatest rider of all time and you would have to really look to find better


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

It's amazing how much time people spend talking about Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Anyone who thinks Lance was the best ever REALLY needs to study up on the history of racing.


Sometimes being the best seen is valued higher than being the best read about


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

ttug said:


> Armstrong himself has declared that Eddy Merckx was the greatest rider of all time and you would have to really look to find better


Merckx could do it all. He probably doped also. I don't really care. They all dope. Lance doped--at least at some point and time. I still think what he did was quite a great accomplishment--dope or no.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

ghost6 said:


> It's amazing how much time people spend talking about Lance Armstrong.


It's also amazing how much time some people spend worshipping and idolizing him as well.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

piano said:


> It's also amazing how much time some people spend worshipping and idolizing him as well.


Worship....destroy.....too much Lance all around.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

My take on this whole thing.

From another forum re LA's TDF wins:

First comment - "He cheated and stole it!"

Next comment - "No, he cheated and stole it from everybody else that was cheating and trying to steal it!"


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I tend to think most interested in this case--or at least those like me who believe Armstrong should fall--are really interested in the problem of doping in sports and cycling in particular. That is particular true for me.

What is actually unique about the Armstrong case is that there are so many staunch defenders. 

If you took Armstrong out of this, and forgot his status as a hero to many and head of a foundation many people have strong feelings about, would there be anyone left standing to defend him other than his closest friends and family?

Seriously, what if he was from Uzbekistan and didn't have a foundation, but all the same evidence existed against him (including allegedly defrauding the U.S. Postal Service)? 

The Lance Armstrong case is unique in the cycling/doping world not because of the alleged "haters" but because of his staunch defenders. 

P.S. He played a big role in me getting into cycling. I was looking forward to watching the TDF coverage each July before I had ever even gotten on a road bike. But I can't ignore the evidence against him and would like to see cycling (and all sports) cleaned up for those who want to compete and not dope.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Gatorback said:


> snip
> 
> What is actually unique about the Armstrong case is that there are so many staunch defenders.
> 
> snip


A frequent question asked in this forum is on the seeming lack of discussion about other dopers. There is plenty of discussion of other dopers, but because they do not have as many defenders, the discussion tends to be short and fell off the top of the list.

Look at the thread on Pelizotti. A paltry 516 views. Even the thread on Vaughters has a pathetic 550 views. The Novitzky thread? Amazing 4,796 views. 

It is also amazing the number of posts publicly declaring that the poster "does not care".


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The problem with Armstrong is that he has become too mythical. Simply put, he had everything going for him. Tactics, team, training schedule, and the luck of staying healthy and not crashing. It's easy to see how HE won them, but easy to forget it was an effort on multiple levels and he simply had more advantages.


----------



## cinelliguy (Jan 4, 2011)

One can say he is lucky, or advantage but for so many years, and not loose? Come on, this is the TdF, the big show. Seven times? The saying goes luck blesses the prepared, that is Lance, well prepared for everything, every year. The problem, not a problem for me, is that Lance Armstrong kicked everyones *ss; his rivals, the media, the testing takers, the labs, the Feds and all you guys who are bent out of shape because you think he should have got caught. Again all I can say is prove it, try to win against Lance and his legal team.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cinelliguy said:


> One can say he is lucky, or advantage but for so many years, and not loose?


Look at his rivals. 

Jan was injured and couldn't ride in 99. Busted for recreational drugs in '02. 

Pantani couldn't ride in 99 due to doping suspension but ended up having horrible intestinal problems in 2000.

Can't even remember how many times Bobby Julich crashed out. 

Moreau seemed plagued by bad luck after '01. 

Beloki crashed out HARD in 2003. 

Etc.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*agreed*



Bocephus Jones II said:


> Merckx could do it all. He probably doped also. I don't really care. They all dope. Lance doped--at least at some point and time. I still think what he did was quite a great accomplishment--dope or no.


Their accomplishments, were great for sure.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

cinelliguy said:


> One can say he is lucky, or advantage but for so many years, and not loose? Come on, this is the TdF, the big show. Seven times? The saying goes luck blesses the prepared, that is Lance, well prepared for everything, every year. The problem, not a problem for me, is that Lance Armstrong kicked everyones *ss; his rivals, the media, the testing takers, the labs, the Feds and all you guys who are bent out of shape because you think he should have got caught. Again all I can say is prove it, try to win against Lance and his legal team.


Did he kick their *** or did he buy (some of) them off? ;-)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Look at his rivals.
> 
> Jan was injured and couldn't ride in 99. Busted for recreational drugs in '02.
> 
> ...


Pantani did not have a doping suspension, he had to have a two week rest for "Health Purposes" 

Do you think that Jan would have liked to have advanced notice of surprise out of competition testing like Lance had? That test cost him millions of $$ and 6 months off. 

Wouldn't Pantani prefer to take a 30 minute "Shower" then take a surprise test? CONI was surprise testing Pantani in the last days of the Giro? .....while Armstrong was doing Pre-Tour "Testing" with Ferrari and not a tester in sight. 

Sometimes you make your luck.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

orange_julius said:


> A frequent question asked in this forum is on the seeming lack of discussion about other dopers....Look at the thread on Pelizotti. A paltry 516 views. Even the thread on Vaughters has a pathetic 550 views. The Novitzky thread? Amazing 4,796 views.



I think the anti-Lance sentiment is fueled not only by the doping allegations, but also by his overinflated ego, blatant lying or skillful word manipulation, personal financial gains from Livestrong, and lack of respect for competitors.

I can forgive his doping involvement because yes, everyone was doing the same during that cycling generation. For the others issues mentioned, he made choices which are much harder to overlook or forgive. "You get what you give"

I


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

biobanker said:


> Trek cancel their ads?


Having bought a bike at Performance last year and therefore getting Bicycling free for the last year, I was able to determine during my time in the toilet that the answer is yes. Looked at the last 2 issues and Trek is nowhere to be found. Cynicism seems to always be a very fruitful shortcut in analysis these days.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

adimiro said:


> but also by his overinflated ego,


I wouldn't say his ego is overinflated. He _did_ deliver 7 TDF wins. No matter the cost. :thumbsup:


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

covenant said:


> I wouldn't say his ego is overinflated. He _did_ deliver 7 TDF wins. No matter the cost. :thumbsup:




Having the talent to be a champion, even 7 times, does not make you a superior human being. 

But hey, if your OK with winning at all costs, lying to your supporting fan base and profiting from other's hard earned money, that's is your choice also.


----------



## cinelliguy (Jan 4, 2011)

Fact is, Lance IS a superior racer, DONE. Winning the TdF requires amazing sacrifice way beyond anything this mortal can imagine. He defines a superior bike racer. I, for one, am perfectly happy with his winning, perfectly and I have not seen anyone or any organization or government, not even the that Federal money (yep, your money) waster Jeff Novitzky prove anything.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

adimiro said:


> Having the talent to be a champion, even 7 times, does not make you a superior human being.


I don't think he's ever made that claim.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sometimes you make your luck.


If you think so, you've never raced. Period.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

cinelliguy said:


> . . . I have not seen anyone or any organization or government, not even the that Federal money (yep, your money) waster Jeff Novitzky prove anything.


Yep. I hate it when the government wastes my taxpayer money investigating crimes. Especially when the investigation includes tax evasion. I would much rather pay higher taxes myself (to make up for the taxes not paid by others) than to allow some of my tax money to be used to investigate tax evaders.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> If you think so, you've never raced. Period.


? That makes no sense. Period. 

You point out that both Pantani and Ullrich missed parts of their career because of surprise tests, something Armstrong did not have to worry about. 

Having Walter Viru give your team doctor advance notice of testing is not luck. The fact that his agent was also an IOC board member had access to the OOC testing schedule is not luck. 

Armstrong's luck came from being a very good bike racer and being very well prepared.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Marco*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Pantani did not have a doping suspension, he had to have a two week rest for "Health Purposes"
> 
> Do you think that Jan would have liked to have advanced notice of surprise out of competition testing like Lance had? That test cost him millions of $$ and 6 months off.
> 
> ...


I believe he also missed time due to a driving incident if I recall, NOT the accident that nearly cripplled him, but rather another one where he had to do "community" service.

While he never had a "doping" suspension, he did test for am ENORMOUS crit value (nearly 60).....back in believe 99....Which short of living and training on the moon, did not happen due to his good looks.... 

Later, a syringe was found with insulin in his room and if I recall, he stated, its not mine......not, WTF is that, but rather, its not mine.

OH WELL,


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ? That makes no sense. Period.
> 
> You point out that both Pantani and Ullrich missed parts of their career because of surprise tests, something Armstrong did not have to worry about.
> 
> ...


Again, if you raced, you'd know exactly what I was talking about. Handling skills are a must, but Armstrong's luck in regards to the lack of crashing is uncanny and most other riders were not nearly as fortunate. His endo in '03 seems to be the worst of his crashes and he was able to get up, although a little faster or landing wrong could have ended the streak right there. That fateful stage in 2010 showed what happens when that luck runs out.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

spade2you said:


> Again, if you raced, you'd know exactly what I was talking about. Handling skills are a must, but Armstrong's luck in regards to the lack of crashing is uncanny and most other riders were not nearly as fortunate. His endo in '03 seems to be the worst of his crashes and he was able to get up, although a little faster or landing wrong could have ended the streak right there. That fateful stage in 2010 showed what happens when that luck runs out.


You speak of "luck" specifically to things that happen during the race while the racers are on their bikes and rolling. I think Dr. F speaks of "luck" to include everything beyond the actual racing.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Again, if you raced, you'd know exactly what I was talking about. Handling skills are a must, but Armstrong's luck in regards to the lack of crashing is uncanny and most other riders were not nearly as fortunate. His endo in '03 seems to be the worst of his crashes and he was able to get up, although a little faster or landing wrong could have ended the streak right there. That fateful stage in 2010 showed what happens when that luck runs out.


The whole "if you raced" thing is old and meaningless. You're and nearly everyone else here is an amateur racer posting anonymously - that's a fact. 

As for 2010, well, in my view, the guy had a LOT on his mind, he claimed he lost no sleep, maybe, but boy when stuff hit the news LA hit the pavement.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Again, if you raced, you'd know exactly what I was talking about. Handling skills are a must, but Armstrong's luck in regards to the lack of crashing is uncanny and most other riders were not nearly as fortunate. His endo in '03 seems to be the worst of his crashes and he was able to get up, although a little faster or landing wrong could have ended the streak right there. That fateful stage in 2010 showed what happens when that luck runs out.


What did bike handling skills have to do with Pantani's 53 HCT and Ulrich's positive for X? both mentioned in your post about luck.

Stop with the "If you raced" garbage. Did my first race in 1982 at 15, many, many races since.


----------



## petepeterson (Jan 4, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Again, if you raced, you'd know exactly what I was talking about. Handling skills are a must, but Armstrong's luck in regards to the lack of crashing is uncanny and most other riders were not nearly as fortunate. His endo in '03 seems to be the worst of his crashes and he was able to get up, although a little faster or landing wrong could have ended the streak right there. That fateful stage in 2010 showed what happens when that luck runs out.


two things: 

Talking about luck and racing is ridiculous. Ask anyone who has raced at a higher level than cat. 4 or triathlon and they will tell you that for the most part you make your own luck. Stay in the front. You are in such denial. He just wasn't good enough in 2010.

Second. All the "innocent until proven guilty" founding fathers please read ashenden's interview. Yes it is long but please try. Let's all agree LA is a special athlete but at least take off the blinders no?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Bicycling has articles other than "*40 ways to ride your next century faster!*"? And "*we review 10 bikes, and they are all awesome!*"  

/sorry no actual content
//just like making fun of Bicycling 
///renewed my subscription to Road today
////Flanders!!


----------



## Tight Nipples (Feb 18, 2011)

cinelliguy said:


> *...I have not seen anyone or any organization or government, not even the that Federal money (yep, your money) waster Jeff Novitzky prove anything.*


That's kind of like looking at a pregnant woman and saying "I don't see a kid yet. What a waste of time and resources."

Patience CG, patience.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

cinelliguy said:


> Fact is, Lance IS a superior racer, DONE. Winning the TdF requires amazing sacrifice way beyond anything this mortal can imagine. He defines a superior bike racer. I, for one, am perfectly happy with his winning, perfectly and I have not seen anyone or any organization or government, not even the that Federal money (yep, your money) waster Jeff Novitzky prove anything.


Saying Armstrong was a superior racer is one point of view. There are others. Personally, I seriously doubt he was the first great cyclist to come up with the idea that targeting and racing only one main event a year, a Grand Tour, would greatly increase your chances of excelling in that event--especially when you were always going to be the leader of the team and having everyone else always ride for you and protect you at all costs. But how many of the great racers other than Armstrong chose to actually sit out and not contest virtually all the other races?

I'm wondering how many Classics George Hincapie might have won had Armstrong gotten his ass out there and worked for him on some cold spring days? Unless I'm mistaken, Hincapie has exactly zero Classics wins and that might be a shame. There is honor in bike racing through things other than Grand Tour victories.

Was Armstrong good enough to win a Classics race and a Grand Tour in the same year? 

Was he good enough to pull off the coveted Giro/Tour de France double? 

Or maybe 2 of the 3 Grand Tours in one year? 

These are things we will never know because he didn't show up to compete. 

Why didn't he personally try to bring back some Classics victories to us in the U.S.? 

His 7 Tour de France titles will be one of the all time great feats in cycling. He was winning against guys who were also doping, so it isn't like doping accomplished all that for him. But aside from doping, there are other things that take away from what he accomplished.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Hincapie has won at least 2 Classics*



Gatorback said:


> Saying Armstrong was a superior racer is one point of view. There are others. Personally, I seriously doubt he was the first great cyclist to come up with the idea that targeting and racing only one main event a year, a Grand Tour, would greatly increase your chances of excelling in that event--especially when you were always going to be the leader of the team and having everyone else always ride for you and protect you at all costs. But how many of the great racers other than Armstrong chose to actually sit out and not contest virtually all the other races?
> 
> I'm wondering how many Classics George Hincapie might have won had Armstrong gotten his ass out there and worked for him on some cold spring days? Unless I'm mistaken, Hincapie has exactly zero Classics wins and that might be a shame. There is honor in bike racing through things other than Grand Tour victories.
> 
> ...


George has 2 Classics that I know of:

Gent–Wevelgem in 2001
Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne in 2005


He is possibly oe of the greater US National Road Race Champs and he has a few stage wins in te milti day classics and his stage win in a TDF of course.

George also is a hell of a rider and his fitness level in 05, was incredible.


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

kbwh said:


> Exactly. Meanwhile, over in Europe, we'll continue to shake our heads in amused disbelief.


disbelief at what?
oh, you mean the fact that you got your asses kicked for 7 years straight by a doped up arrogant american?

haha!

now you can deal with 7 years of an even more doped and more arrogant spaniard.


----------



## petepeterson (Jan 4, 2011)

ttug said:


> George has 2 Classics that I know of:
> 
> Gent–Wevelgem in 2001
> Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne in 2005
> ...


Semi-classics to be correct....


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I guess there are different definitions of the Classics. I view them to be what others also call the "Monuments of Cycling." Hincapie won some Semi-classics, and had the ability to win one of the big 5, but has never done it. How would a Ronde or Roubaix victory appear on his list of achievements? What would they mean to him personally? 

If someone had helped sheppard me to a Tour de France victory--much less 7--I would sure as hell get my butt out there and bury myself for them to try to get them a victory in races which suited them well. 

I wonder, if Armstrong the brand wasn't the main focus of the teams he was on--and they were like most other teams--how many years would Armstrong have been told he was riding for Hincapie? Some reports suggest Hincapie was actually stronger in some years for the Tour.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

lastchild said:


> disbelief at what?
> oh, you mean the fact that you got your asses kicked for 7 years straight by a doped up arrogant american?
> 
> haha!
> ...


I don't think any country can really claim innocence and this goes back more than a few years. :wink5:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

petepeterson said:


> Semi-classics to be correct....


Yup.....and KBK is a Semi-Semi Classic. Het Volk is the bigger race that weekend

Just because a race is run in the rain in Belgium does not make it a classic.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> I'm wondering how many Classics George Hincapie might have won had Armstrong gotten his ass out there and worked for him on some cold spring days?


Watch the '05 Ronde. Lance rides for George, pulling the chase group at a couple points to try to bring George back up to the front. George didn't have the legs that day to match Boonen, but that was the year of Boonen's double. Lance rode a very strong race that day, for someone who didn't have serious designs on winning. From what I recall, Lance was near the front for most of the '10 Ronde as well.

Read this, since we're on the topic of Bill Strickland and George's Classics career. 



Gatorback said:


> Why didn't he personally try to bring back some Classics victories to us in the U.S.?


To put it bluntly, because not a whole lot of people in the US really care. I do, and actually like the Classics more than the Tour, but I'm in the minority.
Lance's Classic Victories:
Clásica de San Sebastián (1995)- Fall/Autumn Classic
La Flèche Wallonne (1996)- Ardennes Classic​Did the vast majority of people in the US notice? He was World Champion in '93, and I doubt many US conglomerates were rushing to write multi-million dollar contracts. Like it or not, the TDF sells like no other bike race.


petepeterson said:


> Semi-classics to be correct....


Gent–Wevelgem is a legitimate Cobbled Classic. It may not be on par with a Monument like Paris-Roubaix or Flanders, but it's a Classic.

As time has gone by, I really have gravitated less towards the GT hopefuls and more towards the domestiques and one-day riders. Maybe that's a reflection of my own abilities and preferences. At any rate, while I can't really call myself for or against Lance, I can certainly recognize the positive impact he's had on cycling in the US, while being fully aware of the darker side. Nobody is perfect, except on the internet.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Ghent is a semi and KBK is well below Ghent.

There is only one American to win a classic, Hamilton who won Liege - or are you all forgetting that? The big issue with George was that Postal was never setup as a classic team, sure they had greats come through - Boonen, Hoste and Devolder, but those guys all wanted out once they showed real promise - especially Boonen. Postal ran classics as an after thought it was ALL ABOUT THE TOUR. And for that, Hincapie suffered in his placings.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He may have suffered in placing, but US Postal paid their loyal servants quite well. Sure, some left when they wanted to get the glory, but many stayed on board because it served them well financially.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

The Classics are far more interesting to me as well. I'll admit I owe it to Armstrong for gaining my interest in cycling, through the Tour, but it was just an intro. An appetizer. It becomes boring after a while--you get a 3 week race that is decided essentially based upon a long time trial and a couple of mountain stages where the big guns really come out to play. They don't even race that hard on some of the mountain stages. 

The Classics? There is nothing like watching the best riders in the world all slugging it out and going for broke on the same day in a gut wrenching race on a brutal course in often brutal weather. You know you've got a great race when the peloton is blown to pieces and there are just a few dozen riders strong enough to duke it out for the last 50 or 100k.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> He may have suffered in placing, but US Postal paid their loyal servants quite well. Sure, some left when they wanted to get the glory, but many stayed on board because it served them well financially.


Not totally correct, they paid some of the tour riders VERY well, which included George. People like Heras were paid well, you think Tony Cruz got paid a lot, you're kidding yourself.

Then there is the whole, you leave you get caught - Hamilton, Heras, Landis - all legit tour contenders, all wanted it for themselves, all left all got busted, Coincidence? Maybe, but like news hitting and LA hitting the pavement it sure does look connected.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

*Oh and one more thing . . .*

For all the newbies who don't know there history . . . . 

LeMond was deemed to be someone who only raced for the tour yet he got two 4th place finises at Roubaix - one time was one of the worst roubaixs ever with less than 50 people finishing and the other was when his team mate won and Lemond stayed with the breakaway and then didn't sprint to contest the podium since he didn't pull.

Armstrong has never even lined up at the start.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> The Classics are far more interesting to me as well. I'll admit I owe it to Armstrong for gaining my interest in cycling, through the Tour, but it was just an intro. An appetizer. It becomes boring after a while--you get a 3 week race that is decided essentially based upon a long time trial and a couple of mountain stages where the big guns really come out to play. They don't even race that hard on some of the mountain stages.
> 
> The Classics? There is nothing like watching the best riders in the world all slugging it out and going for broke on the same day in a gut wrenching race on a brutal course in often brutal weather. You know you've got a great race when the peloton is blown to pieces and there are just a few dozen riders strong enough to duke it out for the last 50 or 100k.


Congrats! This is the sign of a truly evolved bike fan. Good for you - come for the tour, but stay for the classics.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ronderman said:


> Not totally correct, they paid some of the tour riders VERY well, which included George. People like Heras were paid well, you think Tony Cruz got paid a lot, you're kidding yourself.
> 
> Then there is the whole, you leave you get caught - Hamilton, Heras, Landis - all legit tour contenders, all wanted it for themselves, all left all got busted, Coincidence? Maybe, but like news hitting and LA hitting the pavement it sure does look connected.


LOL, ok the _crucial_ domestiques were paid very well. 

As for riders being caught. What really happened is anyone's guess. Did JB buy immunity from the testers? It would seem so, although we'd be hard pressed to prove anything at this point.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> LOL, ok the _crucial_ domestiques were paid very well.
> 
> As for riders being caught. What really happened is anyone's guess. Did JB buy immunity from the testers? It would seem so, although we'd be hard pressed to prove anything at this point.


Yea, I know, because cash donations over 100 grand to the UCI doesn't mean anything, right? :idea: 

Look, I know it's all circumstantial, for now, but guess what, a smoking gun is circumstantial. Then again, if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit - that seems to be the theme.

But come, don't argue Postal had a strong classics team. I mean George getting depantsed by not one, not two, not three, but four Domo riders. I mean jeez.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> LOL, ok the _crucial_ domestiques were paid very well.
> 
> As for riders being caught. What really happened is anyone's guess. Did JB buy immunity from the testers? It would seem so, although we'd be* hard pressed to prove anything at this point.*


Walter Viru, the guy who ran the UCI blood lab in Valencia and gave the USPS doctor the testing schedule, was arrested a few months back for running a blood doping business on the side. You would be surprised how talkative people become when faced with significant jail time. Dr Ferrari also facing a long stay.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Walter Viru, the guy who ran the UCI blood lab in Valencia and gave the USPS doctor the testing schedule, was arrested a few months back for running a blood doping business on the side. You would be surprised how talkative people become when faced with significant jail time. Dr Ferrari also facing a long stay.


You and I will never have the same definition of proof. Anyone can say anything on the interweb.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ronderman said:


> Yea, I know, because cash donations over 100 grand to the UCI doesn't mean anything, right? :idea:
> 
> Look, I know it's all circumstantial, for now, but guess what, a smoking gun is circumstantial. Then again, if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit - that seems to be the theme.
> 
> But come, don't argue Postal had a strong classics team. I mean George getting depantsed by not one, not two, not three, but four Domo riders. I mean jeez.


Could be that he asked them to look the other way with US Postal, but maybe gave them tips on riders who defected. 

I'd never argue that US Postal didn't focus on the classics. I give them some props for at least trying or pretending to try. Keep in mind there are teams that really didn't have classics squads or GT squads.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Walter Viru, the guy who ran the UCI blood lab in Valencia and gave the USPS doctor the testing schedule, was arrested a few months back for running a blood doping business on the side. You would be surprised how talkative people become when faced with significant jail time. Dr Ferrari also facing a long stay.


You might be right. They might be waterboarding him and Popo and Ferrari and LA's ex-wife and the guy who owns Hincapie Sportswear in a room somewhere. Afterall, most of your posts are just repeats alluding to all the canaries that will sing once the sword is held under their wontons.

Until any of this happens you are just another internet ****-stirrer. Or maybe Sheryl Crow.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> The Classics are far more interesting to me as well. I'll admit I owe it to Armstrong for gaining my interest in cycling, through the Tour, but it was just an intro. An appetizer. It becomes boring after a while--you get a 3 week race that is decided essentially based upon a long time trial and a couple of mountain stages where the big guns really come out to play. They don't even race that hard on some of the mountain stages.
> 
> The Classics? There is nothing like watching the best riders in the world all slugging it out and going for broke on the same day in a gut wrenching race on a brutal course in often brutal weather. You know you've got a great race when the peloton is blown to pieces and there are just a few dozen riders strong enough to duke it out for the last 50 or 100k.


I agree, at least recently. I would rather take a 10 second inhale of Tony Martin's soiled chamois than have to watch another Contador-Schleck tapdance.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

JohnHemlock said:


> I agree, at least recently. I would rather take a 10 second inhale of Tony Martin's soiled chamois than have to watch another Contador-Schleck tapdance.



That's just sick!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> You and I will never have the same definition of proof. Anyone can say anything on the interweb.


Not just me, Jesus Manzano and Floyd Landis have said the same thing.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh doctor*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup.....and KBK is a Semi-Semi Classic. Het Volk is the bigger race that weekend
> 
> Just because a race is run in the rain in Belgium does not make it a classic.


Yes, I am aware of that but how many of those have you won?

Yuh, thought so.

Hey Volf WAS at one point litsted as a Classic, KBK, semi, but I thought I saw it as a Classic as well.

BUT since ALL of us ride at a level to dismiss these as minor on a list of cycling Palmares (WRONG), lets return to the church of rectal cranial inversion and doping......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ttug said:


> Yes, I am aware of that but how many of those have you won?
> 
> Yuh, thought so.
> 
> ...


Really? You going to use the "He can ride faster then you" line? I thought that died years ago. 

You do not have to win a classic to realize that George was under supported for years. So may years he was the strongest guy, only to show up to the race with a 2nd tier team and 3rd tier equipment. 

I hope he does well tomorrow, but I think he best days may be behind him.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Gatorback said:


> I tend to think most interested in this case--or at least those like me who believe Armstrong should fall--are really interested in the problem of doping in sports and cycling in particular. That is particular true for me.
> 
> What is actually unique about the Armstrong case is that there are so many staunch defenders.
> 
> ...


I'm no LA fanboy, and if he did cheat, he certainly deserves to be punished. That said, I have several points I'd like to make:

- You state here that you would like to see LA fall. That to me indicates a bias against LA. You mention his 'staunch defenders', but what about his haters who base their hatred on a belief in heresay, and innuendo, and all the "truth" out there in internetland? Why should he be singled out? Im a firm believer that ALL athletes should be treated equally, and that ALL dopers should be punished in accordance with their infraction, irrelevant of either their status within their sport, or their status on the world stage. 

- You mention 'evidence'. I challenge you to show me one piece of evidence against LA which exists that will a)pass all medical and scientific requirements for admission b)is legally actionable. To date no evidence of that sort has come to light after numerous inquiries and legal proceedings, that has resulted in action of a sporting or legal nature against LA. Perhaps a re-test of the '99 tour samples may prove something? Perhaps Novitzky will turn something up? But so far there is NOTHING which has passed the legal and sporting requirements for sanction in either arena.

Many believe the allegations, here-say, etc. but the fact of the matter is that most if not all of what is out there against LA has already been subjected to greater scrutiny in many forms. The SCA case, and the French investigation are 2 specific cases where most if not all of what is currently out there against LA was used, scrutinized in a level of detail not available to the general public, and then deemed not to be substantial enough to sanction him. In fact in EVERY instance so far, NONE of what is out there, NONE of what so many take as the truth concerning LA, has proven enough to take action of a legal or sporting nature against LA.

Its one thing to have an opinion, its another entirely to direct vitriol at an individual on the basis on information which may or may not be correct. Iraq 2 anyone? Everyone was sure Saddam was making WMDs... What did they find when they went in?


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Lemond was pure talent - VO2 max of 92! (tested pre-epo era for all the haters)


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

ttug said:


> Their accomplishments, were great for sure.


Exactly, I could dope all day long and still suck. 

Having had 12 golf-ball size tumors in the lungs and lesions on the brain and then actually finishing 1 TdF is pretty much a miracle.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

slegros said:


> I'm no LA fanboy, and if he did cheat, he certainly deserves to be punished.


Ok, punish him, but be fair. Go down the GC and also test ALL of those samples, as well as many stage hunters. I'm no rocket scientist, but I have a feeling we'd have to punish a LOT of riders. 



slegros said:


> Its one thing to have an opinion, its another entirely to direct vitriol at an individual on the basis on information which may or may not be correct. Iraq 2 anyone? Everyone was sure Saddam was making WMDs... What did they find when they went in?


Considering the UN was not allowed to make any serious inspections for about a decade, of course we didn't find anything. Give someone enough time and you can hide a lot of stuff.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

slegros said:


> - You mention 'evidence'. I challenge you to show me one piece of evidence against LA which exists that will a)pass all medical and scientific requirements for admission b)is legally actionable. To date no evidence of that sort has come to light after numerous inquiries and legal proceedings, that has resulted in action of a sporting or legal nature against LA. Perhaps a re-test of the '99 tour samples may prove something? Perhaps Novitzky will turn something up? But so far there is NOTHING which has passed the legal and sporting requirements for sanction in either arena.


Uh, I'm not sure you want to challenge me on what constitutes "evidence" and what does not. If you've been reading the doping forum for a little while, and I'm pretty sure you have, then you know I'm a trial lawyer in the U.S. That is what I do for a living, owning my own firm. My job is preparing cases for trial--evaluating evidence, figuring out what is admissible and what is needed for it to be admissible, figuring out what is junk, and putting on a great case. I'm quite skilled at sifting through stuff I read on the "internet" and putting aside stuff that is pure junk and unreliable, recognizing the stuff that comes from legit news sources and is reliable and admissible if presented in the right way, and knowing what can't be judged based on the info we are given. 

Armstrong doped my friend. Anyone who can't see that has buried their head in the sand and just doesn't want to see it. 

I'm not sure what the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction have to do with this issue. This isn't a political forum. You've got no idea regarding my views on the Iraq war the the Bush administration. 

I'm not an Armstrong hater. I've acknowledged and recognized his accomplishments even in this thread, and his important contribution to my own involvement in cycling. But that is a different issue than wanting to see him get busted or "fall" as I put in and having to come clean.

*If anyone wants to debate the real complex issue, I think spade2you has identified it above. What do we do with Armstrong's titles in light of the fact most everyone else was doping? *Now that is a real problem and there may not be a good answer. I have thought through different solutions, but they all have problems and would be unfair to some people. 

What I am most interested in is cycling becoming legitimately clean. And one of the only ways to do that is to make sure everyone knows they WILL someday be busted if they cheat--even if it takes years. So don't cheat. We will eventually catch up to you. Cycling has not yet reached that point--but at least it is way ahead of most sports.


----------



## cinelliguy (Jan 4, 2011)

I agree with the points made by spade2you and Gaterback. There may be no way to solve the mystery without being unfair to others but working toward a legit clean sport, it the way forward...if possible. Don't know.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

any good trial lawyer will eat those 99 samples for lunch...

think chain of custody issues and french bias...what joke...

just like oj, if the glove don't fit got to acquit..


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

a_avery007 said:


> any good trial lawyer will eat those 99 samples for lunch...
> 
> think chain of custody issues and french bias...what joke...
> 
> just like oj, if the glove don't fit got to acquit..


You are probably right, although I doubt you have the info to assess the evidentiary value of past samples available for testing in Armstrong's situation. You would have to investigate and research chain of custody issues, whether the evidence can still be validly tested, and the degree to which current tests are effective. I put all that evidence in the "we can't judge it category." It is the cumulative effect of all the other evidence that demonstrates Armstrong doped beyond any reasonable doubt.

You can discredit one person, but this isn't a "he said she said" between Floyd Landis and Armstrong. There are way too many accusers and witnesses at this point.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Gatorback said:


> Uh, I'm not sure you want to challenge me on what constitutes "evidence" and what does not. If you've been reading the doping forum for a little while, and I'm pretty sure you have, then you know I'm a trial lawyer in the U.S. That is what I do for a living, owning my own firm. My job is preparing cases for trial--evaluating evidence, figuring out what is admissible and what is needed for it to be admissible, figuring out what is junk, and putting on a great case. I'm quite skilled at sifting through stuff I read on the "internet" and putting aside stuff that is pure junk and unreliable, recognizing the stuff that comes from legit news sources and is reliable and admissible if presented in the right way, and knowing what can't be judged based on the info we are given.
> 
> Armstrong doped my friend. Anyone who can't see that has buried their head in the sand and just doesn't want to see it.
> 
> ...


Basically all the info that is out there has been used either in the process of a sporting investigation or legal dispute against LA. The French investigation and the SCA case used most, if not all of it. As a trial lawyer, In your opinion then, why after several investigations and court cases have no sanctions of any kind been levied against Armstrong?

As for my Iraq analogy I was merely trying to illustrate the hazards of basing one's actions on either incomplete or inaccurate information.


----------



## Byke Dood (Feb 3, 2011)

:idea: accuser Greg Lemond must have been a big doper when he won 3 tours :yesnod: you know it takes one to know one.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Byke Dood said:


> :idea: accuser Greg Lemond must have been a big doper when he won 3 tours :yesnod: you know it takes one to know one.


That's quite a compelling insight you're offering!


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

slegros said:


> Basically all the info that is out there has been used either in the process of a sporting investigation or legal dispute against LA. The French investigation and the SCA case used most, if not all of it. As a trial lawyer, In your opinion then, why after several investigations and court cases have no sanctions of any kind been levied against Armstrong?
> 
> As for my Iraq analogy I was merely trying to illustrate the hazards of basing one's actions on either incomplete or inaccurate information.


Those "cases" were very limited in scope. If you want me to intelligently comment on each of those cases and why they likely resulted in certain outcomes, I would need the specifics. And I'm talking deposition testimony, copies of the actual documents, etc. 

Looking at the "world of evidence" available against Armstrong is very different. The internet does have some excellent news sources--it is in fact how we get much of our news these days as print media slowly becomes extinct. Could the reporters who interview and report statements from multiple sources such as Landis, Andreau, Andreau's wife, Armstrong's former mechanic, Armstrong former massage therapist be making it all up? I guess, but I'm pretty confident they are doing their job. Did media make up Armstrong's relationship with a doctor known to be heavily involved in doping? Possibly, but again I tend to think that is reliable info. I'm not going to go into everything, I don't have the time, but reliable evidence is there if you really are willing to objectively evaluate it.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Slegros.... do you really think Armstrong didn't dope? (What is your opinion, regardless if it can or can't be proven legally) Did you even read the Bicycling article with a huge long time LA supporter admitting that Yes he doped? 

As far as what should be done with his 7 Titles... I say let him keep them... You can't change the past.... BUT I would like him to admit the lie and publicily apoligize to the people he badly smeared to keep his secret... AND pay back all prize money, pay back the money awarded in the SCA hearing, pay a giant sum of money to help put in place better doping controls. Also, it would be nice to see him picking up trash on the side of a Texas road with a orange vest on.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*agreed*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? You going to use the "He can ride faster then you" line? I thought that died years ago.
> 
> You do not have to win a classic to realize that George was under supported for years. So may years he was the strongest guy, only to show up to the race with a 2nd tier team and 3rd tier equipment.
> 
> I hope he does well tomorrow, but I think he best days may be behind him.


No argument about George being under supported.


----------



## Tight Nipples (Feb 18, 2011)

pedalruns said:


> pay back the money awarded in the SCA hearing....


If the fecal fan gives him as thorough of a splattering as some suspect, that $5M plus punitive damages is a real possibility.  

$5Milllion. That would sting a bit.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

I waited until I read the full article to read and respond to this thread, so here are my thoughts:

Did LA dope? Probably, but I am intelligent enough to admit that I have no proof of it and neither do any of you. Of course that does not stop some of you to claim you have proof and to ignore certain lines in the "proof" you post. (i.e. "Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria."). Which is worse, doping or convicting someone in a public forum based on things you claim are proof that do not hold up to any standard of proof? One thing I have always said is that if LA did not dope then he was a great winner of seven TdF and if he did dope then he was a great champion of seven TdF since he beat a peloton full of dopers. I am also amazed how many people choose to single LA out while making excuses for people like Pantani ("He was never caught for doping, he was sat down for 'health purposes"), Ullrich (Apparently Jan didn't have the money to dope like LA and didn't have advanced notice of tests like we "know" LA did), Merckx (He is the best ever so we ignore his positive tests and even claim he was framed) and Rasmussen (he was never caught doping). My thought is that he is retired, move on and go after the current dopers, the DS's that have had proven doping in their teams, etc. It's like the steroid hearing in baseball that were supposed to be about cleaning up baseball, but in reality were about the past. LA is history, let him have his glory like Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. (all dopers) and move on.

If you truly want to clean up cycling worry about what is going on NOW.


P.S.- I found the article to be cheesy with an "admission" that was really nothing. I could say that Doctor Falsetti admitted to sending emails to my boss filled with lies trying to get me fired but disguised it so he could assume innocence, but it was unmistakable in it's meaning but that really does not say anything but make a vague implication that could just be me thinking I heard something.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Perico said:


> I waited until I read the full article to read and respond to this thread, so here are my thoughts . . . .


Let me sum up your thoughts - Blah, Blah - you're stupid if you think he really doped, but even if he did he's great, cause he beat all dopers, and they all doped anyway and you're a fool if you look at the past. End rant.

OK, so for the smart people: You do know the current investigation has ZERO to do with "cleaning up cycling," right? Please, I hope you at least get this. Two, you do know it's bicycling magazine - of course it's going to be sappy. Three, you do know it's a big deal that the author is making the headline story that LA doped - at least according to him? 

You lost me when you insulted people's intelligence.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ronderman said:


> Let me sum up your thoughts - Blah, Blah - you're stupid if you think he really doped, but even if he did he's great, cause he beat all dopers, and they all doped anyway and you're a fool if you look at the past. End rant.
> 
> OK, so for the smart people: You do know the current investigation has ZERO to do with "cleaning up cycling," right? Please, I hope you at least get this. Two, you do know it's bicycling magazine - of course it's going to be sappy. Three, you do know it's a big deal that the author is making the headline story that LA doped - at least according to him?
> 
> You lost me when you insulted people's intelligence.


Let me get this straight, you felt insulted by my post even though I did not mention anyone in particular so you respond by insulting and attacking me? 

You should try riding your bike once in a while to get rid of all that anger.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Perico said:


> Let me get this straight, you felt insulted by my post even though I did not mention anyone in particular so you respond by insulting and attacking me?
> 
> You should try riding your bike once in a while to get rid of all that anger.


No, no, you don't have it straight - and now you have REALLY stirred up a hornets nest.

First, considering you're posting anonymously and you're some sucky amateur racer (and maybe not even that) perhaps you should take a chill pill. 

I don't have any anger, I just thought your post was off putting - you basically called anyone who didn't agree with you - well, you implied they're dumb. Then you rehashed the same old same old - you forgot to work something in about cancer - but you had no point that's not been brought up time and time and time again. Blah, Blah, Blah - I picture you sounding like the adults in a peanuts cartoon.

I've wasted enough time on you.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I see nothing in the above posts that would have stirred up anything, not sure why it's your hornet's nest.

It is what it is. We could try to strip Pantani of the last double, we could take Jan's win....although busted Virenque and a possibly guilty Pantani would be the benefactors. With Riis, he already isn't listed as the winner, although I'm not sure why Jan didn't get credit for that one. Heck, we might even have to question the validity of Indurain, given the way he blew away Lemond who was probably clean......

When it's all said and done, it's entertainment and I'll still train and race the way I've always done. If dopers start directly affecting me, I might give a flying fornication.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Perico said:


> Which is worse, doping or convicting someone in a public forum based on things you claim are proof that do not hold up to any standard of proof?


Can I call this comment stupid - can I? Is that OK? I mean I don't want to insult, but it's pretty stupid. I mean for real, we're talking about posting on the internet, for something, wait for it - YOU YOURSELF SAID IS PROBABLY TRUE. You compare that to cheating, lying, covering up, bullying, and illegally using federal funds.

OK, got it.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> When it's all said and done, it's entertainment and I'll still train and race the way I've always done. If dopers start directly affecting me, I might give a flying fornication.


Well, good for you :thumbsup: you pedel, spade2you, you pedal you'e bike as fast as you can, remember, keep the rubber side down


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ronderman said:


> No, no, you don't have it straight - and now you have REALLY stirred up a hornets nest.
> 
> First, considering you're posting anonymously and you're some sucky amateur racer (and maybe not even that) perhaps you should take a chill pill.


Once again I posted my general thoughts calling nobody out or insulting anyone in particular and you choose to resort to personal attacks. Apparently you are Mr. Anonymous Internet Tough Guy



> I don't have any anger, I just thought your post was off putting - you basically called anyone who didn't agree with you - well, you implied they're dumb. Then you rehashed the same old same old - you forgot to work something in about cancer - but you had no point that's not been brought up time and time and time again. Blah, Blah, Blah - I picture you sounding like the adults in a peanuts cartoon.


No, I did not call nor imply anyone who did not agree with me dumb. I simply said claiming proof without any real proof or while ignoring certain quotes is stupid. Once again you resort to personal attacks and insults, yet claim you don't have any anger. Like I said, get out and ride your bike, it might help.



> I've wasted enough time on you.


Good, then we won't have an anonymous internet tough guy turning logical, intelligent thoughts into personal attacks and insults. Although I bet you can't stand to let anyone have the last word and will be back for more attacks and insults. Oh, wait, you already did it once.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ronderman said:


> remember, keep the rubber side down


I try. Much less pain than skin side down, so I've learned....in a corner at full speed.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Perico said:


> No, I did not call nor imply anyone who did not agree with me dumb. I simply said claiming proof without any real proof or while ignoring certain quotes is stupid. Once again you resort to personal attacks and insults, yet claim you don't have any anger. Like I said, get out and ride your bike, it might help.


Oh man, you make this sooooo easy - puh lease, stop. However, I can't help myself cause you said this little gem:




Perico said:


> but I am intelligent enough to admit that I have no proof of it and neither do any of you.


By your post, if someone were to not admit they had no proof - then they would be lacking intelligence, or at least "enough" intelligence to come to whatever judicial plateau you've reached.

I can go all night long.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ronderman said:


> Can I call this comment stupid - can I? Is that OK? I mean I don't want to insult, but it's pretty stupid. I mean for real, we're talking about posting on the internet, for something, wait for it - YOU YOURSELF SAID IS PROBABLY TRUE. You compare that to cheating, lying, covering up, bullying, and illegally using federal funds.
> 
> OK, got it.


I thought you wasted enough time on me?:lol: 

It's not a comment, it's a question. I guess you feel cheating at a sport where everyone else is cheating is much worse then committing defamation and libel, based on your insults...errr, I mean comments.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Perico said:


> I thought you wasted enough time on me?:lol:
> 
> It's not a comment, it's a question. I guess you feel cheating at a sport where everyone else is cheating is much worse then committing defamation and libel, based on your insults...errr, I mean comments.


I have evolved to wanting to show you the "way" - plus I am watching the game so I have my trusty laptop, so, unfortunately for you, I got time :blush2: 

Look, I have also evolved my position on LA. He used to be a favorite, to a guy I didn't really care for to a guy I wouldn't mind seeing get some. There are a bunch of reasons, but I think given all the circumstantial evidence - from tests in 1999, to the way he treated riders who testified about his doctors, to the doctors he was worked with, to other people getting busted, to his wanna-be hollywood status, to his ability to user cancer as a crutch (yea, I said it) and as host of other things - I just want to see closure. Maybe I'll get some, maybe not, maybe I'll be happy, maybe sorely disappointed, but clearly, at this point - to say he doped would surely be a far, far cry of libel - so give it a rest Sara Palin (and that was meant as an insult).


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ronderman said:


> Oh man, you make this sooooo easy - puh lease, stop. However, I can't help myself cause you said this little gem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought you were through wasting your time with me? 

Interesting how you choose to only respond to this one part. Not surprised as people like you always ignore what doesn't suit them.

Please explain how claiming to have proof when you do not have proof is intelligent. It isn't and you are smart enough to know that. 

What this comes down to is that you are one of the people that I was talking about and so you are getting defensive by going all out on the attack with personal insults and attacks, playing Mr. Internet Tough Guy who claims to be done but has to get in the last word.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ronderman said:


> I have evolved to wanting to show you the "way" - plus I am watching the game so I have my trusty laptop, so, unfortunately for you, I got time :blush2:
> 
> Look, I have also evolved my position on LA. He used to be a favorite, to a guy I didn't really care for to a guy I wouldn't mind seeing get some. There are a bunch of reasons, but I think given all the circumstantial evidence - from tests in 1999, to the way he treated riders who testified about his doctors, to the doctors he was worked with, to other people getting busted, to his wanna-be hollywood status, to his ability to user cancer as a crutch (yea, I said it) and as host of other things - I just want to see closure. Maybe I'll get some, maybe not, maybe I'll be happy, maybe sorely disappointed, but clearly, at this point - to say he doped would surely be a far, far cry of libel - so give it a rest Sara Palin (and that was meant as an insult).


I love people who make excuses for why they keep responding after they said they were done. I also love people who continually ignore things that don't suit them or their agenda. 

Keep trying with those insults Mr. Anonymous Internet Tough Guy.
:lol:


----------

