# From Lance to Landis



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

Just finished reading From Lance to Landis and want to recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet. David Walsh did a lot of research/interviews and does a good job summarizing all of the doping accusations against Landis, Hamilton and especially Armstrong, as well as giving a little history of doping in cycling in general. One thing I found interesting was that he claims that Tyler Hamilton never graduated from college, despite the fact that Tyler always maintained that he did.

Any French speakers read LA Confidential? If so, how does it stack up to FLTL? One would assume that it has more dirt or is more accusatory, seeing how (from what I remember) Armstrong and his legal team prevented it from being translated to English or published in the US.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

BAi9302010 said:


> Just finished reading From Lance to Landis and want to recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet. David Walsh did a lot of research/interviews and does a good job summarizing all of the doping accusations against Landis, Hamilton and especially Armstrong, as well as giving a little history of doping in cycling in general. One thing I found interesting was that he claims that Tyler Hamilton never graduated from college, despite the fact that Tyler always maintained that he did.
> 
> Any French speakers read LA Confidential? If so, how does it stack up to FLTL? One would assume that it has more dirt or is more accusatory, seeing how (from what I remember) Armstrong and his legal team prevented it from being translated to English or published in the US.


Hey,
Yeah from Lance to Landis is an excellent read. It covers an awful lot of ground, gives great detail and is impeccably researched. This though does not surprise me, because Walsh is an outstanding journalist and is one the most prominent feature writers in the UK. He covers a whole host of sports, although he has been following cycling for almost thirty years. He is also a multi-award winning journalist in the UK. Many Lance fans think he has a personal vendetta against Lance. And this is not true at all. He has been covering the doping issue in great detail long before Lance. Two examples:
(1) He exposed Stephen Roche in Ireland for his links to Professor Conconi and EPO usage.
(2) He wrote a series of articles questioning the validity of the success of Michelle Smith, the Irish swimmer, during the Atlanta Olympics. She won three golds. Walsh was seriously criticised in Ireland for these pieces. In 1998, she tampered with a urine sample, thus completely vindicating the people who had raised doubts about her success.
Anyone who has read from Lance to Landis will probably have read the inside page where he dedicates the book to a certain person. This is touching and is a big motivating factor in David's work. David is noted in the industry for his honesty and integrity.

Yeah, check out that about Tyler not finishing college. He attended but did NOT graduate.

There are English versions of LA Confidential on the Internet. I've read it, and to be honest, it's not particularly more explosive than From Lance to Landis. The main parts of the latter are in the former. Obviously there's more about Floyd and Tyler. As Walsh said himself, the main reason for publishers being willing to publish FLTL was down to the ever changing environment around doping. More and more cases were coming to light at the time. Some people want to believe that Walsh did this book for the money, but knowing the amount he received for the book and the time he had to take out from his job in the Sunday Times (unpaid leave), this is a crazy theory....


----------



## mdtompkins (Sep 4, 2008)

I'm almost done with this. Great book, leaves quite a few questions in my mind about Lance. I find it hard to believe that Walsh made this stuff up and all the sources would lie about what they saw and heard. That would be quite a conspiracy, right up there with JFK. Maybe Oliver Stone can make a movie about it.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

BAi9302010 said:


> Just finished reading From Lance to Landis and want to recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet. David Walsh did a lot of research/interviews and does a good job summarizing all of the doping accusations against Landis, Hamilton and especially Armstrong, as well as giving a little history of doping in cycling in general. One thing I found interesting was that he claims that Tyler Hamilton never graduated from college, despite the fact that Tyler always maintained that he did.
> 
> Any French speakers read LA Confidential? If so, how does it stack up to FLTL? One would assume that it has more dirt or is more accusatory, seeing how (from what I remember) Armstrong and his legal team prevented it from being translated to English or published in the US.


Really great book. Not that different than "LA Confidentiel" which I also read. 
To the critics of this book, I say read it. Walsh isn't pointing fingers at Lance. Just putting facts together in an orderly fashion. The conclusion I drew, was that Lance took on the Europeans at their game (doping) and beat them. He also describes how Lance was very single minded. One would say the ultimate professional.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

so why isn't LA banned or suspended? 

lawyers? 

Having listened to Walsh, he seems like Captain Ahab to me. And LA is his big whale to cash in on

If the evidence isn't speculative then why isn't LA suspended or banned?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> so why isn't LA banned or suspended?
> 
> lawyers?
> 
> ...


Same reason Ulrich is not banned or suspended. 

The reality is times have changed. What Lance got away with 10 years ago does not work today. No back dated TUE's, Retro testing is OK, Dumping Actovign on the side of the road....do you think he could get away with that today? Delucca was suspended for talking to Santuccione, Schleck was suspended for paying $10,000 to Fuentes.....how many $100,000's did Armstrong pay Ferrari?

You should try reading Walsh


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

I never said the guy didn't do it but I don't see any hard evidence. I don't see any money exchanges between LA and Ferrari or anyone else. I don't recall anything that was dumped on the side of the road proven to be of consequence

Armstrong was paid millions by firms and sponsors, don't you think if any of this had credibility someone would have come forth? Other than a begrudged cook or mechanic?

I've listened to Walsh at news conferences and I am familiar with the London Times. I know their reputation. From what I have read out of Walsh's mouth and from his behavior publicly I am unimpressed and wouldn't refer to him as exactly some great investigator or brilliant theorist. He did however make a good deal of money


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

by the way where is the anger at the cycling bodies who are welcoming LA back if he cheated? Your passion seems only to be directed at once place which doesn't give it a lot of credibility, especially since no one has said "No" to Armstrong racing ..... I am greatly looking forward to the man being in the field. Watching him race is pretty impressive and exciting


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> ... by the way where is the anger at the cycling bodies who are welcoming LA back if he cheated?


ASO has not exactly been hailing LA's return. It was reported just yesterday that a meeting with ASO has been requested by LA and Bruyneel to clear the air. The other cycling bodies are less willing to take a stand against a payday.



CARBON110 said:


> I don't see any money exchanges between LA and Ferrari or anyone else.


 This is not a matter of speculation. LA was coached for years by Ferrari. LA was very open about this and very loyal to Ferrari right up until Ferrari's sanction. The only controversy is whether LA doped at the direction of Ferrari who is famous for having suggested that EPO was safe to use.



CARBON110 said:


> I am greatly looking forward to the man being in the field. Watching him race is pretty impressive and exciting


 Agreed, but his legacy within the cycling community is not rock solid. If he is to maintain the integrity he needs to support his good deeds, he will have to walk a fine line. If he does secure an invitation to the TdF, it would be counterproductive to his goals if there is a syringe painted in the road next to his name on Mont Ventoux. 

He does not need to be "banned or suspended" for the public to lose faith in him and his causes.

JSR


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

CARBON110 said:


> I never said the guy didn't do it but I don't see any hard evidence. I don't see any money exchanges between LA and Ferrari or anyone else. I don't recall anything that was dumped on the side of the road proven to be of consequence
> 
> Armstrong was paid millions by firms and sponsors, don't you think if any of this had credibility someone would have come forth? Other than a begrudged cook or mechanic?
> 
> I've listened to Walsh at news conferences and I am familiar with the London Times. I know their reputation. From what I have read out of Walsh's mouth and from his behavior publicly I am unimpressed and wouldn't refer to him as exactly some great investigator or brilliant theorist. He did however make a good deal of money


Due to the different time zones I didn't get to reply to your post in the other thread. However, for the sake of convenience, I will address some of the points raised in that thread, here, as I also want to discuss things said on this thread.

"David Walsh and his clout hardly seem credible and look more like bottom feeders who see a way of making money - besides human beings are very unreliable and finding truth from people is a difficult enough task when money isn't involved. Most of the time you have to take someone at their word." 

For what reason do you believe that David and his clout hardly seem credible? Who made money from the book? I know how much David made, and he actually made a loss due to the book. He got money from the publishers obviously, but took unpaid leave from the Sunday Times. 
And considering the things you've had to say about David and his like, do you not think it hypocritical to infer that we are being 'arrogant' and 'self-righteousness' in our expectations of Lance?
His work in Cancer. Nobody in their right mind would discount this. I've said this before, his story of survival, just getting back into pro cycling is a source of great hope to cancer sufferers. However, it is a separate issue, and is not relevant in this particular forum. Unless of course, you want to debate the point that some people in the medical profession think that the testicular cancer could have been brought on by the use of PEDS. 
You dismiss Walsh's awards and the esteem with which he is held. You compare his awards to those of a car salesman. Do you not think this is disrespectful to an awful lot of journalists in the UK and Ireland?
Testing negatives by Lance. Does Operation Puerto not show you the worthlessness of this statement? Even the BALCO case should show you this.
Riders who have been welcomed back? Are you joking? The likes of Botero, Tyler, Mancebo are not exactly being treated well. Ullrich is a national joke.

Getting back to David Walsh. Have you read the books in question? What specific parts of his articles, interviews or books, do you not find credible or even untrue? Do you know how much money he received? You are criticising Walsh, yet you have not read his work. Basically, you're basing it on a few soundbites. What part of his behaviour in public do you not think is right? I believe that if you provide SPECIFIC examples of Walsh's work, we may be able to debate this. You talk of emotion and lack of perspective getting in the way of people who don't support Lance, again, do you not find your own position to be based entirely on emotion?
Anger towards governing bodies. Well I've referred to my disgust towards the UCI on numerous occasions. They are a corrupt organisation who want to stay afloat. Doping positives and their surrounding publicity has a serious impact on this. 
You think Activogen being dumped on the side of a road is of no consequence?
Could you specify the name of the 'begrudged cook or mechanic'? You say, 'surely someone would've come forth', but then you immediately dismiss the people who do come forth.
Do you think Ferrari provided services over a ten year period for free?


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

lol would you guys calm down please. We are having a discussion which means we are voicing our differences of opinion. 

Digger most of your post is still speculation - I don't see any concrete evidence, in fact it is at best circumstantial really. But that doesn't mean it isn't understandable. I understand and may agree but that doesn't mean anything because the system isn't very good and guilt by association has never proven anything except in the eye of the public, people like you. 

I remember when US Postal dropped something by the side of the road but I don't recall anything coming of it or anyone paying any consequences. I could be wrong but I don't think so

There have been a multitude of riders who have cheated and returned and been met with open arms from the public. How selective is your memory and information here. I can name a dozen easily all loved. The biggest offenders would be Virenque, Pantani, Garzelli, Vandenbroucke, Mussuw, Di Luca, Miller, and many many others. 

Ignoring LA's work in cancer is just foolish. It is a testament to a part of who he is as much as cycling. You can't just separate what you please. Even in public courts in America, the land of incarceration, what you do and practice can influence any case. 

I asked you guys why he is still allowed to ride after we all agree that doping today is less tolerated than it was a decade ago, but he is still riding isn't he, and planning on riding a lot more for a few years to come - so if you're correct and Walsh's allegations hold water, what gives? Shouldn't you really be taking your anger and outrage to cycling bodies? That dog just won't hunt son  ahha just teasing there

My opinion of D. Walsh stems from his public comments and his public behavior of interviews I have watched. He looked and sounded more vindictive than anything else and for good reason, Lance didn't hold back on his respect of Walsh's efforts so it all seemed like a personal grudge especially since ( drum roll please ) Armstrong was never convicted of anything by anyone or tested anything other than negative 

Who did I dismiss? Armstrong is famous, being concerned about safety when racing the TDF is common sense as there are plenty of crazy ass people out there. You don't need to be famous to be involved in nefarious circumstances to be a part of them or dragged into them; false harassment suits, triangulation in work dynamics, etc etc happen to good normal people all the time. There has been plenty of investigation into LA and I'm waiting for a smoking gun fellas? 

I have read doping books such as breaking the chain and others but I wouldn't piss my money away on Walsh even in the dollar store. I don't base my decision on emotion, I base it on what I see and what I've read as fact and I think there is a long line of people like yourselves who would like to see Lance fail. If there was something outstanding it would have come about by now and he would be prevented from riding

Move forward with the sport. Lance is good for cycling, good for cancer, and good for American awareness - besides, the LIVESTRONG effort is just awesome - the ride for the roses and the like etc is great stuff. 

I think what a lot of people forget is the guy is a man of action and he is thorough and intelligent. He gets stuff done and when he makes a commitment it happens nearly every time. Running through women the way he does and cycling the lengths which he does indicates a persona of type A restlessness. He has been racing nearly his entire life, he came from nothing, and if he did dope and I'm not saying he didn't, well he wouldn't be the first would he and so what - get over it, move on, everyone else has, and it will pass. His name will be hailed as the greatest TDF rider for many reasons and until someone else sets a new record. Many people made that happen but his name won't be removed. 

your attitudes of hopeless negativism are kind of sad. Have you never read a biography about a real person? Everyone has their issues, whether it be arrogance or something more sinister. Lance is just a guy and what if he didn't dope, have you totally ruled that out? He beat those guys who were doping by giant margins when they were on dope - and if he and they did dope he beat them anyway lol


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Carbon,

You should listen to "The Boxer," by Simon and Garfunkel to accompany your reading of Walsh.

I love how you question Walsh's journalistic integrity.

Walsh did interview LA after his second or third TdF win. The interview is pretty astounding in LA's absurd denials. One of which was, that he didn't discuss the Ferrari investigation with his best friend Kevin Livingston, who was also under scrutiny during the investigation. That investigation revealed that Livingston's Hct went from 41 to almost 50 in 6 months which is highly improbable.

Lance knew nothing about this and also didn't discuss it with his best friend and teammate? Right.

Did Livingston introduce LA to Ferrari?

Maybe you can understand why Andreu would pay a huge portion of his salary to Ferrari for advice on intervals.

Frankie decided not to.

Uhhhh, wake up, it wasn't just for the intervals that he would pay 30 to 40% of his salary....


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

CARBON110 said:


> Digger most of your post is still speculation - I don't see any concrete evidence, in fact it is at best circumstantial really.
> 
> 
> There have been a multitude of riders who have cheated and returned and been met with open arms from the public. How selective is your memory and information here. I can name a dozen easily all loved. The biggest offenders would be Virenque, Pantani, Garzelli, Vandenbroucke, Mussuw, Di Luca, Miller, and many many others.
> ...


Point out where my post is 'speculation'. It absolutely is not.
Cyclists who have tested positive or been banned ala Operation Puerto in the past four or so years, they have NOT been welcomed back. Even David Millar has been villified in many quarters. How can you possibly say that Tyler, Basso etc have been welcomed back with open arms?
What has cancer got to do with doping and whether he doped?
Your opinions on Walsh. You didn't answer any of the questions i asked about him. What money did he receive? What money did the people interviewed receive? You made claims about him doing it for the money. What did you base these claims on? How can you possibly critique his work if you have not read it? This is rediculous. If you provided specific examples of his untruths, then maybe I could 'debate' Walsh in some meaningful way. As it is, the notion of you having your mind made up on the guy, whilst knowing VERY little, well does it seem fair to you? 
You say that you base your opinion on fact, but you won't read books available to you!
Lance did test positive. Twice. But apparently you know this already. Bribery of the UCI can go far. You want a smoking gun? Various people saying they doped with Lance or heard him admitting he doped, this is not sufficient apparently. A smoking gun? Is it a photograph with Lance injecting himself with EPO marked on the syringe? Because I honestly think you'd find fault with that also.
Look at your last two paragraphs...And you tell me that your opinion is not based on emotion! Your post is so fawning towards Lance, that for you to say it is not based on emotion is farcical.


----------



## parker3375 (May 6, 2008)

I don't wanna jump in on this one but I have to. I recently finished the book as well and my feelings about LA have changed. I have one thing to say to those who try to refute what has happened or might have happened. If you are going to preach to those people in a doping forum wouldn't you read as much as you could about the subject that your discussing? It makes much more sense to know ALL aspects of an argument if you want yours to hold water. Don't just say that you wouldn't waste your money on a book that you don't agree with, that's ignorant. The book in question contains facts about this argument. Not just hearsay. To say that you are allowed to pick and choose what was a fact and what you believe doesn't build a strong argument on any side you choose to discuss. And from my understanding, the reason why LA wasn't suspended in the first instance is because he obtained a theraputic exemption form. The second time that he failed was when his samples were re-tested from the 99 tour. He was retired and enough time had passed from that date that they were not considered grounds for repercussion. Remember how Ullrich and Pantani are still considered winners of the tour? How about Bjarne Riis?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

parker3375 said:


> I don't wanna jump in on this one but I have to. I recently finished the book as well and my feelings about LA have changed. I have one thing to say to those who try to refute what has happened or might have happened. If you are going to preach to those people in a doping forum wouldn't you read as much as you could about the subject that your discussing? It makes much more sense to know ALL aspects of an argument if you want yours to hold water. Don't just say that you wouldn't waste your money on a book that you don't agree with, that's ignorant. The book in question contains facts about this argument. Not just hearsay. To say that you are allowed to pick and choose what was a fact and what you believe doesn't build a strong argument on any side you choose to discuss.


You are absolutely right in all of what you say here. People need to read the book and then form a judgement, like you've done. Otherwise it's just rediculous to form an opinion of a book without reading it. In Academia these people would be laughed out of the institution. 
:thumbsup:


----------



## lancezneighbor (May 4, 2002)

I think it is a well done book, both research and writing. It made me question both Landis and Lance. I just have to tell myself it's only a sport. The true cyclists are the ones who commute in the snow.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

You all might want to check out the recent Velopress book, A Dog in the Hat. Matter of fact, first hand account of Euro doping/racing from a US pro. Excellent book.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Fawning? you're being very reactionary which was the point of my original objection, gauge your outrage. I encourage you to find a cause, a real cause and put your passion into that if you want some justice. Everyone is tired of the controversy and now we are talking about bribery in the UCI lol as if you know it personally - you don't know any facts any better than I do and I guess what is more convincing is not merely that Lance was exonerated but he returned without any objection, without anyone, no one saying - he can't ride here! 

So if he did cheat, and maybe he did, then what does that say about the governing bodies of the sport? If you're right, the problem is far bigger than Lance Armstrong - and that is where your contempt should be directed. 

You asked for me to substantiate my opinion on Walsh, I did. He made a lot of $$ off his book, that should be obvious. Please try and stay focused on your questions before drifting or changing the nature of the discussion and then making outlandish statements. 

You sound angry about Lance Armstrong riding professionally, OK we got it, so what, get over it, let it go, move on, accept it or don't but you're not solving any case here nor do you possess any insight anyone else hasn't brought forward. What is your motivation? Just need a vehicle to scorn Lance? With all the BS in the world right now you want to try and dig up an old story about a guy who helps cancer survivors? lol knock yourself out, this is where you want to focus your energy coolio 

I think I made it clear that I feel there is a real possibility he did cheat and it is understandable that others feel this way. Sooooo wtf are you brooding about? I'm psyched to see him race anyway, so what? Doesn't make me a fool or a villain, just a fan of racing clean and dirty, because it has always been dirty. 

I'm still not sure what you are so on about, but you should be ticked off at the process that to YOU allows a guilty man to not only get away with it but gets to do it all over again? He isn't Lex Luther OK so just try and relax with your temper a little jack 

You don't sound like you know professional cycling very well or that you have not been following it for very long. It sounds like you don't know a lot about dopers other than LA, Ullrich, and Basso. Basso by the way will be a giant in the future despite your objections. 

I'm sure you'll feel compelled to profess you know everything about cycling and blah blah blah but please don't - I mean if you did know anything the fact Virenque did what he did and the fans loved him for winning the Mts Jersey anyway over and over should say it all really, or Pantani's story if you don't get any substance of the mentality of the fans in Europe to still love a guy who cheated just because - then I can't explain it and you won't understand any of this. 

Maybe I can rent Walsh's book from the local lib or something. I guess Digger, what it comes down to is that I just don't really care quite enough to spout hate about a guy that does as much as Lance does for others. Maybe that possesses some hypocrisy because I do want a clean sport. I don't have the time right now to read Walsh's book, I'm into 4 other books at the moment and have a long list of things that interest me. We can argue about pro fields and such but reading velonews and procycling and the other mags on the sport along with several blogs and the like in addition to people I know who race with in the big time it seems that nearly every doper that made it back to big racing was welcomed back and for obvious reasons, it is a wide spread issue. Seems more secretive the US ranks 

Hope you find some moderation and ridiculous is how you spell ridiculous since you continue to spell it with an e over and over but use it repeatedly - not meant as a cheap shot as I miss spell words all the time ....


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Carbon,
> 
> You should listen to "The Boxer," by Simon and Garfunkel to accompany your reading of Walsh.
> 
> ...


again I never said he was innocent and I totally understand the point of view. But the degree with which it is expressed is something different. People who can't find something to identify with in the story of doping and choose a higher moral ground are silly people. 

I like your recommendation. I question Walsh just from his interviews, behavior, and personality which seem petty and kind of full of narcissism 

Frankie A. is a sad story indeed, a real bummer isn't it. Think of all the endless hours of trainer riding he must have done only to come out like this. Bummer


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

You're such a hypocrite if you accuse me of being reactionary, considering the tone of your recent emails. 
I've followed cycling very closely for over 20 years, and doping in cycling, in particular. I used the examples of Ullrich etc because they are the most notable of recent times, and also because I was pretty confident your own knowledge didn't stretch back to pre 1999. You patronise me about knowing the reactions of people in Europe, to cyclists returning from bans. I live in Europe! If you knew as much as you think, you;d know that the doping landscape has changed as regards people's reactions in Europe. Only ten years ago, i.e. the Festina case and Pantani for example, the fans were more accepting of it. This is drastically changing, and the treatment of Jorg Jaksche, Sinkewitz, Vino, Ricco are more examples of this. You gave examples in previous posts of people being welcomed back, and these names included Johan Museeuw (check your spelling there by the way). Museeuw was already retired when he admitted to taking EPO, he then resigned. VanDenBrouke was another example. You may want to check out his attempted suicide if you think he was welcomed back with open arms. Basso will not be nearly as popular as he once was, even you would have to admit this. He's a joke anyway and should be given a lifetime ban for his 'attempting to dope' excuse. 
And if you don't know about corruption in the UCI, you really don;t have a clue. Google Hein Verbruggen.
Regarding Walsh, I would advise you to stop making sweeping statements about the guy when you've not read his work and know very little about him. You have no idea how much he made from the book, yet you claim to know. HE DID NOT MAKE MORE THAN HIS SALARY FROM THE TIMES. But you won't believe that. What about all the negative things you;ve said about Walsh? Slightly hypocritical there, to say the least, when you throw stones about the anger I apparently have for Lance. You can't even back up your negative comments about Walsh - Love the narcissism reference though. If you only knew.. Read his book and articles, then come back and substantiate your views in a some way meangingful way. 
And you of all people making a comment about me misspelling a word!  Glasshouses, stones and all that.

If I were you, I would branch out on my riding to include Paul Kimmage and Pierre Ballester, to get a glimmer of why this topic is so important to me, and has been long before Lance. 
P.S. According to physiologists (Antoine Vayer being one), unless Basso dopes, then he doesn't possess the phsyiology to compete for the Tour. If he comes back and rides similar speeds, wattages, and VAMS, he is undoubtedly doping again. Unless you're naive enough to believe the Chris Carmichael/ Lance Armstrong school of coaching of course.

And your reply will be yet another post talking about directing my hatred and anger in the right direction, yet denigrate Walsh, and say how he got alot of money for the book (with NO evidence). You will say nobody is perfect. Lance is great for his work in cancer......


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

BAi9302010 said:


> Just finished reading From Lance to Landis and want to recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet. David Walsh did a lot of research/interviews and does a good job summarizing all of the doping accusations against Landis, Hamilton and especially Armstrong, as well as giving a little history of doping in cycling in general. One thing I found interesting was that he claims that Tyler Hamilton never graduated from college, despite the fact that Tyler always maintained that he did.
> 
> Any French speakers read LA Confidential? If so, how does it stack up to FLTL? One would assume that it has more dirt or is more accusatory, seeing how (from what I remember) Armstrong and his legal team prevented it from being translated to English or published in the US.


I finally read it recently. I couldn't put it down. To me the most damning evidence against LA is the chat session between Andreu and Vaughters. At the time the two had no idea that this conversation would ever be made public... extremely candid exchange.

I have zero respect for LA after reading that book.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

lancezneighbor said:


> I think it is a well done book, both research and writing. It made me question both Landis and Lance. I just have to tell myself it's only a sport. The true cyclists are the ones who commute in the snow.



+ about a million.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> You're such a hypocrite if you accuse me of being reactionary, considering the tone of your recent emails.
> I've followed cycling very closely for over 20 years, and doping in cycling, in particular. I used the examples of Ullrich etc because they are the most notable of recent times, and also because I was pretty confident your own knowledge didn't stretch back to pre 1999. You patronise me about knowing the reactions of people in Europe, to cyclists returning from bans. I live in Europe! If you knew as much as you think, you;d know that the doping landscape has changed as regards people's reactions in Europe. Only ten years ago, i.e. the Festina case and Pantani for example, the fans were more accepting of it. This is drastically changing, and the treatment of Jorg Jaksche, Sinkewitz, Vino, Ricco are more examples of this. You gave examples in previous posts of people being welcomed back, and these names included Johan Museeuw (check your spelling there by the way). Museeuw was already retired when he admitted to taking EPO, he then resigned. VanDenBrouke was another example. You may want to check out his attempted suicide if you think he was welcomed back with open arms. Basso will not be nearly as popular as he once was, even you would have to admit this. He's a joke anyway and should be given a lifetime ban for his 'attempting to dope' excuse.
> And if you don't know about corruption in the UCI, you really don;t have a clue. Google Hein Verbruggen.
> Regarding Walsh, I would advise you to stop making sweeping statements about the guy when you've not read his work and know very little about him. You have no idea how much he made from the book, yet you claim to know. HE DID NOT MAKE MORE THAN HIS SALARY FROM THE TIMES. But you won't believe that. What about all the negative things you;ve said about Walsh? Slightly hypocritical there, to say the least, when you throw stones about the anger I apparently have for Lance. You can't even back up your negative comments about Walsh - Love the narcissism reference though. If you only knew.. Read his book and articles, then come back and substantiate your views in a some way meangingful way.
> ...


why don't you freak out or something? 

I don't agree with your opinion or perception and that is OK. You really need to chill out though as your posts are extremely hostile. I think Basso will prove you wrong in the future but we won't know for some time. You sound like a very overbearing person which doesn't make very good company. Doesn't mean you are, you just come off that way in this thread

The tone of my "emails" has been an appeal to understand why people dope, to try and help miserable people like yourself identify with some aspect of the story under the pretense of the human condition. The degree of outrage doesn't equal the crime. You seem to lack a great deal of compassion, forgiveness, sympathy and acceptance. Seems like you're really upset about LA riding, reminds me of people who get mad when their favorite sporting teams lose, it's kind of sad and funny.

Whether Lance rides or not or doped or not doesn't influence my mentality or mood. You sound very impressionable to get so wound up about it. I feel bad for you but I hope you can find a balance or distance yourself emotionally form professional sports. FVB is a sad story indeed. 

I guess you will have to get familiar with seeing dopers winning again since many are returning to the sport, I hope that doesn't spoil it for you and that one day you can understand that life isn't always as simple as good and bad or that if you're polarizing people it doesn't mean that redemption or second chances are a bad thing. Walsh's book was a hot seller in Europe, hence how I felt comfortable making the statement about his motive for writing it. Good luck and have fun in Europe 

And yes, I do possess some hypocrisy in my life. I'm American after all lol that doesn't make me a bad person though except maybe in your eyes. And just because I think you behaved like an ass in this thread doesn't make you a bad person either. See how that works? 

Not every action defines an entire human beings existence although it can. Lance Armstrong's work in the world of Cancer is bigger than his work in the world of cycling. People can disagree and still communicate. What we disagree about is the degree and form of expression used when convicting someone who is still welcomed in pro ranks and still riding. We also disagree with some of the theories formed around that individual. Again I really think you should be talking about the process and governing bodies and how unreliable everything appears to be


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

CARBON110 said:


> why don't you freak out or something?
> 
> You sound like a very overbearing person which doesn't make very good company. Doesn't mean you are, you just come off that way in this thread


Just when I come across certain characters.

I thought the way you defended Lance, the extent of it, was a bit much TO SAY THE LEAST. I was a big Jan Ullrich fan, but then I found out about the workings of T-Mobile long before Operation Puerto, and there's simply no way I could defend the guy. No way. Doped athletes did clean athletes out of a living, glory, prestige. Where is the justice there? Not every cyclist, even in Lance's time doped. What about the cyclists who were driven out of the sport early because of dopers? We should just pretend it never happened?
However, what really got me was your castigation of David Walsh. If you only knew the guy and his motives. You are so far off the mark. And believe me, regardless of what you think my motives on this thread are, Walsh did not write that book for money. I know exactly how much he was paid. He would've been better off financially if he had stayed in employment for the year and not wrote the book. But it is incredibly unfair to the guy to criticise him BEFORE you've even read his material. Read the book, and then tell me that you think it's a crock of sh**, that would be some way reasonable at least.
If Basso is welcomed back all over Europe, we may as well give up. 

For my part in this, I do get 'excited' and worked up about doping. But I genuinely believe doping is ruining the sport. It is recovering to a certain extent, but to see someone like Lance doing well next Summer, which I've no doubt about, is a step backwards. I honestly don't think he will come back clean. Lance does not have the physiology (naturally) to climb mountains at the required rate. Lance, clean, would've been a classics racer. Maybe even an extremely good one. But, regardless of the drivel which Professor Coyle has sprouted, his VO2 Max was never outstanding. It was good, but certainly not the best. Time will tell though.
For what it's worth, the thought of Vino returning is nauseating, as is the sight of a number of the members of Rock Racing, this feeling is not exlusive to Lance......


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> If Basso is welcomed back all over Europe, we may as well give up.


What we should give up on is all this speculation. It wrecks our enjoyment of the sport.

In my view, here's what should happen. There should be established rules about doping, testing proceedures, and penalties. Those who fail tests should be punished. Period.

The public should accept this and live by it. If they feel that the system is inadequate and some athletes are still cheating, they should direct their anger at those in charge of the system, not any athletes that they suspect.

Until an athlete has been caught and convicted by the system, he should be considered to be playing by the rules. None of this he-said-she-said speculation about what someone may or may not be doing in regards to doping.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Point out where my post is 'speculation'. It absolutely is not.
> Cyclists who have tested positive or been banned ala Operation Puerto in the past four or so years, they have NOT been welcomed back. Even David Millar has been villified in many quarters. How can you possibly say that Tyler, Basso etc have been welcomed back with open arms?
> What has cancer got to do with doping and whether he doped?
> Your opinions on Walsh. You didn't answer any of the questions i asked about him. What money did he receive? What money did the people interviewed receive? You made claims about him doing it for the money. What did you base these claims on? How can you possibly critique his work if you have not read it? This is rediculous. If you provided specific examples of his untruths, then maybe I could 'debate' Walsh in some meaningful way. As it is, the notion of you having your mind made up on the guy, whilst knowing VERY little, well does it seem fair to you?
> ...


Digger,
Are you aware that Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong subsequently won a settlement and an apology from The Sunday Times after he sued it for libel. Court finding don't matter but accusations from hacks do?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Just when I come across certain characters.
> 
> I thought the way you defended Lance, the extent of it, was a bit much TO SAY THE LEAST. I was a big Jan Ullrich fan, but then I found out about the workings of T-Mobile long before Operation Puerto, and there's simply no way I could defend the guy. No way. Doped athletes did clean athletes out of a living, glory, prestige. Where is the justice there? Not every cyclist, even in Lance's time doped. What about the cyclists who were driven out of the sport early because of dopers? We should just pretend it never happened?
> However, what really got me was your castigation of David Walsh. If you only knew the guy and his motives. You are so far off the mark. And believe me, regardless of what you think my motives on this thread are, Walsh did not write that book for money. I know exactly how much he was paid. He would've been better off financially if he had stayed in employment for the year and not wrote the book. But it is incredibly unfair to the guy to criticise him BEFORE you've even read his material. Read the book, and then tell me that you think it's a crock of sh**, that would be some way reasonable at least.
> ...


Digger,
Again I'll ask--Are you aware that Walsh and the Sunday Times lost a liable suit after he wrote about the book in The Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong also won an apology from The Sunday Times for the article.

Do you place more value in speculation and accusations or in court findings?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Digger,
> Again I'll ask--Are you aware that Walsh and the Sunday Times lost a liable suit after he wrote about the book in The Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong also won an apology from The Sunday Times for the article.
> 
> Do you place more value in speculation and accusations or in court findings?


Walsh did not lose a libel suit, the Times settled. While Walsh was named by Armstrong in the suit he in no way lost or settled. The piece was written by deputy sports editor Alan English, not by Walsh. 

Marion Jones also sued Victor Conte for "defamation" for telling the truth about her doping. He settled with her just like Lance did. 

On September 10, 2004, Armstrong filed a $2.4 million defamation suit in France against the Paris-based publisher, La Martinière, and against Walsh, Ballester, and two of their sources, former Motorola rider Stephen Swart and former Postal soigneur (team assistant) Emma O'Reilly. He also sued L'Express for running excepts. 

Realizing these suits had no chance of success he withdrew them quietly 18 months later.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Walsh did not lose a libel suit, the Times settled. While Walsh was named by Armstrong in the suit he in no way lost or settled. The piece was written by deputy sports editor Alan English, not by Walsh.
> 
> Marion Jones also sued Victor Conte for "defamation" for telling the truth about her doping. He settled with her just like Lance did.
> 
> ...


Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong subsequently won a settlement and an apology from The Sunday Times after he sued it for libel.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong subsequently won a settlement and an apology from The Sunday Times after he sued it for libel.


No matter how many times you write this it still is not correct.

Walsh did not write the story and the Times did not lose the case and Walsh settled nothing. 

Lance won nothing, the words apology or settlement did not appear anywhere in their joint statement. After *each* side had negative motions they decided to settle. The Times won a pre-trial appeal from the Court of Appeal to restore the use of a "qualified privilege" defense, which had initially been disallowed and Court ruled in favor of Armstrong in a pretrial motion, saying the article "meant accusation of guilt and not simply reasonable grounds to suspect." With no clear winner in pre-trail, and a potential long costly court battle, they decided that it was best to settle.....Same thing Conte did with Jones. 

All suits against against the publisher, La Martinière, Walsh, Ballester, Stephen Swart, Emma O'Reilly, and L'Express were dropped because they had no chance of success.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> No matter how many times you write this it still is not correct.
> 
> Walsh did not write the story and the Times did not lose the case and Walsh settled nothing.
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._A._Confidentiel "Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong subsequently won a settlement and an apology from The Sunday Times after he sued it for libel".

It is true that Lance wanted the settlement to go further and to include a written apology in a republished version of the book. He appealed the decision to force that issue and lost. The courts will not apparently make an author reprint and republish a libelous book after the book has been shown to be libelous in court.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._A._Confidentiel "Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong subsequently won a settlement and an apology from The Sunday Times after he sued it for libel".
> 
> It is true that Lance wanted the settlement to go further and to include a written apology in a republished version of the book. He appealed the decision to force that issue and lost. The courts will not apparently make an author reprint and republish a libelous book after the book has been shown to be libelous in court.


That is what happens when you use Wikipedia as your only source....you end up looking foolish. 

There was no apology, no cash settlement and it was a joint statement, there was no winner or loser...... and Walsh was not involved, he did not write the article as your Wikipedia link says. Lance sure tried to spin it that he won and it appears some fans and media bought his BS

The insert that Lance tried to have placed in the book was a completely different case filed in France. Lance lost this case AND had to pay court costs because it was deemed frivolous lawsuit. The book has NEVER been shown in a court of law to be libelous.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> That is what happens when you use Wikipedia as your only source....you end up looking foolish.
> 
> There was no apology, no cash settlement and it was a joint statement, there was no winner or loser...... and Walsh was not involved, he did not write the article as your Wikipedia link says. Lance sure tried to spin it that he won and it appears some fans and media bought his BS
> 
> The insert that Lance tried to have placed in the book was a completely different case filed in France. Lance lost this case AND had to pay court costs because it was deemed frivolous lawsuit. The book has NEVER been shown in a court of law to be libelous.


In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.

You can continue to try to blow smoke up everyones' bung b ut your fabrications need to have at least an element of truth!


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.
> 
> "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.



What are you qouting here since you last source proved to be less than accurate you need to post where this came from.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.
> 
> "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.
> 
> You can continue to try to blow smoke up everyones' bung b ut your fabrications need to have at least an element of truth!


Source for quote above please.
I know for a fact that Walsh did not write that article. Alan English wrote the article. Walsh washed his hands of it, because he was sick of how diluted the article had become in comparison to LA Confidential. It had become diluted due to the risk of litigation.
Walsh almost resigned over this incident, as he was/is willing to stand over every word of that book. Litigation held no fear for the guy, such was the thoroughness and honesty of his work. 
However, I've seen that you've used a certain online source for your information.  And you talk to us about believing everything we read!!
I also am confident that your newfound false information of this case has come about in the past couple of days, having read the article on Lance in the Guardian Newspaper. By the way SwiftSolo, the claim that Lance made about the SCA case is complete lies. He won the money, but not because of proving he did or didn't dope.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.
> 
> "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.
> 
> You can continue to try to blow smoke up everyones' bung b ut your fabrications need to have at least an element of truth!


You still do not get it.

The Judge's ruling was PRE trial was a ruling that allowed Lance to pursue his case. It was not a decision of guilt like you continue to repeat. There was no ruling of guilt against Walsh, the Times, or the Book. Walsh did not write the article and the Times did not admit guilt, they only said that the intent of the article not to accuse Lance of doping. No cash settlement was won by Lance, No reprint was forced, The book was never "shown to be libelous in court".


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> You still do not get it.
> 
> The Judge's ruling was PRE trial was a ruling that allowed Lance to pursue his case. It was not a decision of guilt like you continue to repeat. There was no ruling of guilt against Walsh, the Times, or the Book. Walsh did not write the article and the Times did not admit guilt, they only said that the intent of the article not to accuse Lance of doping. No cash settlement was won by Lance, No reprint was forced, The book was never "shown to be libelous in court".


No, it is you who does not get it. The court of appeals is for just that--appeals. The high court did rule and the papers' attorney did indeed make the apologize as noted in my post above. 

For you to continue with this smoke screen is unbelievable but typical of your ilk. The only sources you accept is from wankers who make unsubstantiated claims in the name of jounalism for profit--not from court proceedings. It is clear that you choose only to believe that which supports your preconceived notions. I assume that your quest to manufacture evidence against Sastre will follow the same path and produce the same level of creativity?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, it is you who does not get it. The court of appeals is for just that--appeals. The high court did rule and the papers' attorney did indeed make the apologize as noted in my post above.
> 
> For you to continue with this smoke screen is unbelievable but typical of your ilk. The only sources you accept is from wankers who make unsubstantiated claims in the name of jounalism for profit--not from court proceedings. It is clear that you choose only to believe that which supports your preconceived notions. I assume that your quest to manufacture evidence against Sastre will follow the same path and produce the same level of creativity?



They're still wankers I see!! Watch for the venom towards someone who questions your hero. You have no idea how much money he made for the book. Unsubstantiated claims? Give even one specific example of an unsubstanitated claim by David Walsh or Pierre Ballester. Without ANY knowledge or specific example from their book, you are obviously the one with the agenda here. You talk about preconceived notions, yet you continue to denigrate Walsh and co, before reading their work! Ignorance....

Again, I refer back to Damsgaard's praise for these journalists.

And as for BigPinkt and Sastre, well that's rubbish in fairness. I totally hold my hands up on that one. I stand by my doubts, but it was only me who raised those doubts about Sastre. BigPinkt, someone who actually knows this sport in absolute depth and whose opinion I would seek, was of the opinion that he felt Sastre was clean. He understood where I was coming from, that my doubts were legitimate, but that he believed in Sastre. So you;re wrong there....AGAIN!!!

By the way, you still did not provide a reference for that quote. The one which isn;t meant to be from Wikipedia!
And your understanding or litigation and law is up there with your knowledge of cycling. Do we have to draw you a diagram if the whole process which took place? Because you don;t seem to get what happened at all. Best of luck with your research. It shouldn;t take long, if you continue to visit your usual portals of info!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, it is you who does not get it. The court of appeals is for just that--appeals.


You really do not understand the law. Prior to a case going to trial (Pre-Trail) the lawyers argue the methods of how they will argue the case. THERE WAS NO TRIAL. The judge merely said that Lance could use this strategy in his case. There was a similer ruling earlier in the pretrial that ruled for the Times. There was no trial, no ruling of guilt, no penalty 

You continue to repeat that same issues even though they are nowhere close to true 

"Armstrong subsequently won a settlement"
"Walsh wrote about the book in The Sunday Times"
"Lance wanted the settlement to go further and to include a written apology in a republished version of the book"
"the book has been shown to be libelous in court"

None of this is true, not even close. Lance never was awarded anything by the court. All suits against against the publisher, La Martinière, Walsh, Ballester, Stephen Swart, Emma O'Reilly, and L'Express were dropped because they had no chance of success.

You may want to find sources that are more reliable then Wikipedia and Livestrong press releases because you are looking foolish.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

I too got my law degree in a box of cereal -- just sayin'.....

This thread is very entertaining.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.


Boo Yah!
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/David-Walsh-(sports-reporter)
"Walsh wrote about the book in the Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong successfully sued the Sunday Times for libel.[2] The Sunday Times issued an apology. [3]Armstrong lost his appeal against a ruling denying him the right to insert a denial against accusations of doping published in the book. Cases for defamation against Walsh and co-author Ballenger were dropped.[4]"

http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/malr/10-2-5 UK Defamation Law Update formatted for web.pdf


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Question to LA? 

Do you need to get to a magic number of 6.7 to win the 2009 tour?

Why or why not? What has changed?

Laugh my a$$ off...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> You really do not understand the law. Prior to a case going to trial (Pre-Trail) the lawyers argue the methods of how they will argue the case. THERE WAS NO TRIAL. The judge merely said that Lance could use this strategy in his case. There was a similer ruling earlier in the pretrial that ruled for the Times. There was no trial, no ruling of guilt, no penalty
> 
> You continue to repeat that same issues even though they are nowhere close to true
> 
> ...


So we should believe you with your history of .....a.....credibility and .....a.....unbiased appraisals of Lance instead of the Guardian? 
http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=high+court+hearing+Lance+Armstrong

It is admittedly a tough decision! I'll save you the trouble by as I know your aversion to reading anything that doesn't substantiate your preconceived notions: 

Staff and agencies guardian.co.uk, 
Saturday July 1 2006 02.09 BST 
The Guardian, 

The Sunday Times has settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> So we should believe you with your history of .....a.....credibility and .....a.....unbiased appraisals of Lance instead of the Guardian?
> http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=high+court+hearing+Lance+Armstrong
> 
> It is admittedly a tough decision! I'll save you the trouble by as I know your aversion to reading anything that doesn't substantiate your preconceived notions:
> ...


Firstly, you are some hypocrite to say that people won't read something which doesn't substantiate their preconceived opinions. You've criticised Walsh continuoUsly, by, amongst other things, calling him a wanker. Yet, you've not read his work and have never been able to substantiate your claims about him with a specific example.
Secondly, even someone as dumb as you must be able to see the folly of your above argument. Look at the date. This is completely consistent with what Bigpinkt has been saying, in that it was not the final judgement in the case.
You still feel confident to criticise a book which you;ve never read. Why? Because Walsh is a 'Bob Woodward wannabe'! Now where have I read that before?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Boo Yah!
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/David-Walsh-(sports-reporter)
> "Walsh wrote about the book in the Sunday Times in terms which conveyed the impression that Armstrong was guilty of doping. Armstrong successfully sued the Sunday Times for libel.[2] The Sunday Times issued an apology. [3]Armstrong lost his appeal against a ruling denying him the right to insert a denial against accusations of doping published in the book. Cases for defamation against Walsh and co-author Ballenger were dropped.[4]"
> 
> http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/malr/10-2-5 UK Defamation Law Update formatted for web.pdf


Boo Yah??

You posted a link that was incorrect. 

Walsh did not write about the book in the Times
There was no judgment in the case, Lance and the Times settled. 
The appeal that Lance lost was for another case against the writers of the book.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Wish all this crap would just go away. Pro cycling is ENTERTAINMENT... Nothing else.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Boo Yah??
> 
> You posted a link that was incorrect.
> 
> ...


Link?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> So we should believe you with your history of .....a.....credibility and .....a.....unbiased appraisals of Lance instead of the Guardian?
> http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=high+court+hearing+Lance+Armstrong
> 
> It is admittedly a tough decision! I'll save you the trouble by as I know your aversion to reading anything that doesn't substantiate your preconceived notions:
> ...


No matter how many times you write this it will still not be true.

There was no finding of guilt. None. The PRE-TRIAL ruling you are referring to was the third appeal of an PRE-TRIAL judgment by the court. The Times argued that they had presented a balanced piece and wanted to be allowed to present its defense as to why it felt it was in the public interest to publish the article. At first the court disagreed with this. The Times appealed and WON. The Armstrong appealed and he won. When it became clear to both sides that they were in for a long and costly legal battle they settle BEFORE TRIAL. 

There was no judgment by the court that resulted in a penalty to the Times. Walsh did not write the article, nor was his name on the settlement. The book was NOT "shown to be libelous in court". The only thing you have gotten correct is that in the settlement the Times apologized that some may have misread the article.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> Link?


This is the link to the article in question (infamous one_
It should finally put to bed the myth that David Walsh wrote the article. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article444826.ece


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Sounds like you need to take it up with the Guardian, then. Their reporting of the issue (as linked to) differs from what you are saying here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/jul/01/cycling.tourdefrance2006


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Sounds like you need to take it up with the Guardian, then. Their reporting of the issue (as linked to) differs from what you are saying here.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/jul/01/cycling.tourdefrance2006


It appears that they read the Lance press release and did not try actual journalism

This link talks about the first Times Pre-Trial appeal being successful. It also mentions Lance losing the other case in France where he tried to insert an addition into the book.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news

Here is the BBC take of the settlement
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm
Notice the words "Pre-Trial" when they are referring to the overturning of the previously successful Times appeal. The was not a judgment of guilt, it only effected the way that the Times could argue the case. This Times could make another PRE-Trial appeal, or it could go to trial and argue that it's article was fair. In the end both sides decided to save their money. 

The BBC link also confirms that Alan English wrote the Article, Not Walsh. The joint statement is from the Times and Armstrong, not Walsh. There was never a finding guilt. The books was never "shown to be libelous in court". No matter how many times you post the same incorrect article this will not change.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I guess my choices are getting my info from a legitimate British newspaper, or some guy on the internet. Such a hard choice...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I guess my choices are getting my info from a legitimate British newspaper, or some guy on the internet. Such a hard choice...


I gave you legit links, you chose to ignore them. A simple Google search will find many similar ones, you just chose the one incorrect one that fits your bias. Please find me a link that shows

-the book has been shown to be libelous in court
-Walsh lost a liable case to Lance
-The Times lost a liable case to Lance
-Walsh wrote the times Times article
-The court ordered the Times to make a settlement to Lance

it should be easy for you to find as these "facts" have been repeated over and over here.

The Guardian's ability to report accurately on Lance seems to be a consistent issue
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/2008/11/guardian-article-fallout.html


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> No matter how many times you write this it will still not be true.
> 
> There was no finding of guilt. None. The PRE-TRIAL ruling you are referring to was the third appeal of an PRE-TRIAL judgment by the court. The Times argued that they had presented a balanced piece and wanted to be allowed to present its defense as to why it felt it was in the public interest to publish the article. At first the court disagreed with this. The Times appealed and WON. The Armstrong appealed and he won. When it became clear to both sides that they were in for a long and costly legal battle they settle BEFORE TRIAL.
> 
> There was no judgment by the court that resulted in a penalty to the Times. Walsh did not write the article, nor was his name on the settlement. The book was NOT "shown to be libelous in court". The only thing you have gotten correct is that in the settlement the Times apologized that some may have misread the article.


Somehow you're still not getting it. It is not me that wrote the above in which it is clear that The Sunday times did apologize for the article implying that Lance had used drugs. If you read it real carefully, you'll see that it came from the Guardian. I do not work for the Guardian.

As I made clear before, Lance did not think the decision went far enough and appealed to try to force Walsh to include the apology in a republished version of his bogus book. Lance lost that appeal. 

Now you can continue to sprinkle bull$hit on this any way you'd like, however, people who read the recent interview with Lance will see that this lines up with his story--a story that I had not read until after it became clear to me that it was his attempt to get the apology included in a republished version that failed.

I can see why 90% of the posts on this forum come from three kool-aid drinkers. You three boys continue to pretend that you're right long after it is proven that you're delusional.

So you can try to comprehend it one more time:
The Sunday Times has settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.


If there is any part of this that still confuses you, read it again....and again. It was written by the Guardian--not me. Now you try it: It was written by the Guardian--not Swiftsolo.

You boys get some help--ya hear!


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Please find me a link that shows
> 
> -the book has been shown to be libelous in court


What was determined in court was that the Times did say that Lance was a doper. The Times apologized for that and claim that they didn't intend to do so. So in a way, it's pretty funny that you use the Times as evidence that Lance is a doper since even they don't want to stand by that claim or at least were afraid of going to court to prove it (they'd have to do so to not be found libelous) and so settled.

BTW, I don't have any particular bias. I just refrain from calling someone a doper until the enforcing body of his sport has declared it to be so. Until that happens, it matter not what any masseur, mechanic, journalist, or internet forum member says about it. There is an established method for determining whether a cyclist violated the rules: let's accept that.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> . So in a way, it's pretty funny that you use the Times as evidence that Lance is a doper since even they don't want to stand by that claim or at least were afraid of going to court to prove it (they'd have to do so to not be found libelous) and so settled.


It appears you missed, or ignored, what I have written on this thread. What I was trying to correct here was the incorrect statements that Walsh was found libel in court, that his book was found libel, the he lost to Lance in court and had to pay a settlement.....none of which is true. I was not attempting to debate if Lance doped or not, only to clarify some incorrect assumptions about Walsh and the legal system.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Somehow you're still not getting it. It is not me that wrote the above in which it is clear that The Sunday times did apologize for the article implying that Lance had used drugs. If you read it real carefully, you'll see that it came from the Guardian. I do not work for the Guardian.
> 
> As I made clear before, Lance did not think the decision went far enough and appealed to try to force Walsh to include the apology in a republished version of his bogus book. Lance lost that appeal.
> 
> ...


I knew you were just after reading that piece!! You are so predictable....step up from wikipedia though. Well done you!!

Of course, you believe this to be gospel, yet disregard anything that comes from Walsh or the Times, without even reading it....Good man


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

We haven't heard from Walsh or the Times: we've just heard from some anonymous internet forum posters. Perhaps if you were to tell us who you are, perhaps we'd be more likely to believe your story of events over the one published in the Guardian. I mean, come on: you're the one saying not to trust Wikipedia, which at least has something similar to "peer review" in that it can be and is corrected by lots of people out there who footnote their sources, and yet you are asking us to trust the word of some dude on the internet (you) that we don't know from Jane.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> We haven't heard from Walsh or the Times: we've just heard from some anonymous internet forum posters. Perhaps if you were to tell us who you are, perhaps we'd be more likely to believe your story of events over the one published in the Guardian. I mean, come on: you're the one saying not to trust Wikipedia, which at least has something similar to "peer review" in that it can be and is corrected by lots of people out there who footnote their sources, and yet you are asking us to trust the word of some dude on the internet (you) that we don't know from Jane.


You have been given you links, that you chose to ignore, that directly contradict Wikipedia....which has no peer review, or anything close to it.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> I gave you legit links, you chose to ignore them. A simple Google search will find many similar ones, you just chose the one incorrect one that fits your bias.]


Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

You too have been given links, you too chose to ignore them.
Personally, I think that there are more articles and links that disprove what you are saying.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> What was determined in court was that the Times did say that Lance was a doper. The Times apologized for that and claim that they didn't intend to do so. So in a way, it's pretty funny that you use the Times as evidence that Lance is a doper since even they don't want to stand by that claim or at least were afraid of going to court to prove it (they'd have to do so to not be found libelous) and so settled.
> 
> BTW, I don't have any particular bias. I just refrain from calling someone a doper until the enforcing body of his sport has declared it to be so. Until that happens, it matter not what any masseur, mechanic, journalist, or internet forum member says about it. There is an established method for determining whether a cyclist violated the rules: let's accept that.


Your post is right on. I too have no sense either way about Lance doping or not doping. The disease we see on this forum penetrates every aspect of human success these days as lifes' losers attempt to compensate by bringing down winners. This pretty much is what journalism has become.

I do have a sense about people making accusations based on nonsense:

Those who would believe that someone in a hospital exam room next door overheard Lance confess to his doctor (in the presense of 6 other people in the room) that he'd used drugs, raise my suspicion for a couple of reasons. These suspicions included the fact that hospital exam rooms are typicaly fairly sound proof and I'd expect Lance to be smarter than that. This raises ethics questions about the integrity of anyone who claims to have heard clearly / unmistakedly what was going on in the next exam room, and who then decided to spread this confidential information around in gossip sessions. Does their lack of integrity only apply to spreading confidential patient doctor information or, more likely, does it extend to fabricating the entire story? If they lack the level of ethics to keep that information confidential, do they have the ethics that would keep them from accepting payment for a fabricated story--especially about someone they really don't like?

The sport has enough problems with dopers who get caught without sophomoric speculation from pretend "investigative reporters". I often wonder if any of these dope forum regulars have actually ever been riders.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> I do have a sense about people making accusations based on nonsense:
> 
> Those who would believe that someone in a hospital exam room next door overheard Lance confess to his doctor (in the presense of 6 other people in the room) that he'd used drugs, raise my suspicion for a couple of reasons. These suspicions included the fact that hospital exam rooms are typicaly fairly sound proof and I'd expect Lance to be smarter than that. This raises ethics questions about the integrity of anyone who claims to have heard clearly / unmistakedly what was going on in the next exam room, and who then decided to spread this confidential information around in gossip sessions. Does their lack of integrity only apply to spreading confidential patient doctor information or, more likely, does it extend to fabricating the entire story? If they lack the level of ethics to keep that information confidential, do they have the ethics that would keep them from accepting payment for a fabricated story--especially about someone they really don't like?


Yet more rubbish...
Lance was in a conference room, watching an NFL game with the people in question. They were in a conference room because of the large party, it was more convenient to see the game there. The doctors asked if they could speak with him. Some of the people asked if they should leave. Lance said no need. The doctors asked the question. Lance answered, with the others present. There was none of this rubbish which you've described about people being next door and overhearing conversations. That is absolute bullsh** from you. 
The people who have admitted what was discussed in the room, were the people in the company of Lance. Not in the next room...
And you have already decided that what they write is lies, before you've read any of it. How can you know if it is true or not? You haven't a clue, as this hospital room incident yet again shows...You can't even get the circumstance right for a such a well known and written about incident...
And you've never addressed Damsgaard's praise for these journalists....
You see fit to come on this thread, criticise a book and it's author, without reading either the book or any of his work. And you seem to think your opinion is in any way of note. Be sure to block out anything you don't want to hear!!
I see though that you're in good company on this thread.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Yet more rubbish...
> Lance was in a conference room, watching an NFL game with the people in question. They were in a conference room because of the large party, it was more convenient to see the game there. The doctors asked if they could speak with him. Some of the people asked if they should leave. Lance said no need. The doctors asked the question. Lance answered, with the others present. There was none of this rubbish which you've described about people being next door and overhearing conversations. That is absolute bullsh** from you.
> The people who have admitted what was discussed in the room, were the people in the company of Lance. Not in the next room...
> And you have already decided that what they write is lies, before you've read any of it. How can you know if it is true or not? You haven't a clue, as this hospital room incident yet again shows...You can't even get the circumstance right for a such a well known and written about incident...
> ...


Yeah,
Once the courts brand a big LW (libleous wanker) on the forehead of a hack writer, I tend to spend my time reading other material!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yeah,
> Once the courts brand a big LW (libleous wanker) on the forehead of a hack writer, I tend to spend my time reading other material!


Do you have a link for this court decision you keep referring to that says Walsh and his book are guilty of libel?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Your post is right on. I too have no sense either way about Lance doping or not doping. The disease we see on this forum penetrates every aspect of human success these days as lifes' losers attempt to compensate by bringing down winners. This pretty much is what journalism has become.
> 
> I do have a sense about people making accusations based on nonsense:
> 
> ...


Four of the people in the Hospital have confirmed the story. They must have all gotten together and invented it.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yeah,
> Once the courts brand a big LW (libleous wanker) on the forehead of a hack writer, I tend to spend my time reading other material!


Your post falls down on so many levels.
(1) The article in the Times was not by David Walsh. Even you must be able to read.
(2) You only became armed with this 'reason' (the 'libel') last week, AFTER reading the wikipedia site.
(3) All the main points of LA Confidential are in From Lance to Landis. Lance had abolutely no success in curtailing the publication of the latter. The only thing he had some semblance of success with, as regards the law, was the article in the Times, covered above. And even that 'success' was later negated and not final.
(4) You may want to look into the complete lack of success which Lance had in the French courts, surrounding LA Confidential. Publication of the book took place there without an ounce of trouble. In fact, the judge ordered Lance to pay costs and fined him 1,800 Euros for abuse of the legal process, in relation to his efforts to have a denial on the inside of the book's cover. 
The judge said. "This decision guards the right of journalists to engage in serious investigations, and reminds us that a person who is subject of such an investigation cannot use his refusal to answer questions as a means of getting a judge to impose censure."
A trial date was then set in Paris for the book as a whole. Shortly before the trial, in October 2005, Lance withdrew his action.
It looks like he had taken to heart the comments of his manager, Bill Stapleton, '"the best result for us is, drop the ****ing lawsuit and it all goes away. Because the other option is full out war in a French court and everybody's gonna testify and blow the whole sport."

Note: the praise for investigative journalism.
Also, you never touched on the complete bullsh** you sprouted on your version of what happened in the hospital room. I wonder why...
And any evidence, example maybe, to support your claims of him being a 'hack'. Should be easy to find lies and 'untruths' if he is...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> A trial date was then set in Paris for the book as a whole. Shortly before the trial, in October 2005, Lance withdrew his action.
> It looks like he had taken to heart the comments of his manager, Bill Stapleton, '"the best result for us is, drop the ****ing lawsuit and it all goes away. Because the other option is full out war in a French court and everybody's gonna testify and blow the whole sport."


The SCA lawsuit made it clear that going to court and airing the dirty laundry is not the best way to protect the brand. 

Another key point is that UK and French liable laws mandate the losing party pays court costs and possible penalties. Settling the Times lawsuit before trail and dropping the French lawsuits reduced what was a potentially large financial liability.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Cyclingweekly, a UK mag, weighed in on the Armstrong myth machine. 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/The_Wednesday_Comment_article_272614.html

They correct his spin on the Times case

_And finally, Armstrong said: “We sued David Walsh in the high court and we won that case.”

Not quite. Armstrong sued The Sunday Times over an article written by another member of the paper's staff, Alan English, who wrote about some of the allegations made in David Walsh and Pierre Ballester's book. Armstrong and The Sunday Times settled out of court, which is a very different outcome_.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Cyclingweekly, a UK mag, weighed in on the Armstrong myth machine.
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/The_Wednesday_Comment_article_272614.html
> 
> ...


Cheers, good spot there...
Lance has a likeness for starting lawsuits in the public eye, but then making a very discreet settlement or withdrawing the lawsuit altogether. I will give him one thing, he is incredibly media savvy. The interview in the Guardian being the latest point. 

I see his fans and I think of Stephen Swart's words. Questioned about the reaction he received from his doping admission with Motorola. "I think the people in New Zealand who know the sport, many of whom I know, didn't have their eyes opened by the admission because they were open already. There will always be a percentage of people who refuse to believe the reality. You're not going to change them."


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Ah, the Grauniad - read it daily, great for leftish political comment and arts, absolutely shite for sports coverage, except sensationalised bollox to whit the Armstrong interview aka Mr Paranoid spouts bullshite and gullible journo laps it up.

Digger, bigpinkt et al, thanks for clarifying the endless lawsuits - don't you love the way they just get dropped so he can say 'I never lost a lawsuit'. Somewhat like 'I never tested positive'


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

To be fair, the one with the Times was settled right after the judge ruled that the Times did indeed imply Lance was a doper. Therefore their defense to Lance's libel suit would necessitate proving it: they apparently didn't feel they could do so and settled instead. If they thought there was enough proof of Lance cheating, they could have defended themselves against the libel claim (you can't be held libel for publishing the truth). In other words, the Times was not willing to stand behind the allegations in Walsh's book and their subsequent article about it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> To be fair, the one with the Times was settled right after the judge ruled that the Times did indeed imply Lance was a doper. Therefore their defense to Lance's libel suit would necessitate proving it: they apparently didn't feel they could do so and settled instead. If they thought there was enough proof of Lance cheating, they could have defended themselves against the libel claim (you can't be held libel for publishing the truth). In other words, the Times was not willing to stand behind the allegations in Walsh's book and their subsequent article about it.


Wrong, again. 

The Judge's ruling overturned another judges ruling that the the article was in the public interest. Unlike what Armstrong's press release said it was not one of a "series of rulings" that were going his way, he had lost the previous one. 

Going up against the lawyers of the Times, who have defending and won many much larger libel suits, is huge risk. Knowing that when you lose you are responsible for all court fees and penalties. Lance did the smart thing, used a pre-trial ruling to back out gracefully so he could claim "Victory" where there was no finish line. 

While Lance's statements and press releases will try to convince you of something different, the settlement did nothing disprove the veracity of Walsh's book. In fact it did quite the opposite. It showed publishers that Lance was unwilling/unable to pursue a legal challenge of it's contents. Walsh published two more books, in English, in the UK, that covered all of the "LA Confidential" material and more....with no legal challenge.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

To me the libel suit is just one more puff of smoke surrouding LA. He sues everyone in order to protect his brand. It is irrelevant in the big scheme of LA doping allegations.

In the book is a subpoenaed chat conversation between Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu. Of course at the time of this chat, they both thought that it would remain private.

JV: once I went to CA and saw that now [not] all the teams got 25 injections every day, i felt really guilty. Hell, CA was ZERO.

FA: you mean all the riders

JV: Credit Agricole

FA: it's crazy

JV: So, I realized lance was full of sh%& when he'd say everyone was doing it
----------

The conversation goes on how they (Disco) would transport bagged blood into the Tour... how LA dumped Floyd's blood down the toilet because Floyd was leaving the team.

Libel suit or not, that chat session is enough reason for me not to give LA the benefit of the doubt that so many people give him.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Four of the people in the Hospital have confirmed the story. They must have all gotten together and invented it.


This is typical you two Dope forum Hall of Famers. * You* confirm this happened in the hospital and *Digger* says it happened at a party. Was it a hospital party or a party hospital? 

After doing a search I've found that in well over 400 posts by the two of you , 99.75% of the posts were focused on bringing down pro cyclists (didn't want to waste any more time looking at any more of your nonsense). It begs the question--have either of you ever been riders? If so, why don't you contribute some of your abundant "knowledge" to other forums? You know--the forums where people are actually seeking advice instead of unfounded speculation.

You might want to examine my previous observation about this kind of behavior. It could change your life dramitically.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> This is typical you two Dope forum Hall of Famers. * You* confirm this happened in the hospital and *Digger* says it happened at a party. Was it a hospital party or a party hospital?
> 
> 
> You might want to examine my previous observation about this kind of behavior. It could change your life dramitically.


"Lance was in a conference room, watching an NFL game with the people in question. They were in a conference room because of the large party, it was more convenient to see the game there. The doctors asked if they could speak with him."
This line is what I typed. You must be seriously thick to misunderstand this. I was talking about a number of people gathered in the one place - not a party like a drink's party...you are some dumba**. Did you not put it together when I mentioned the doctors? The conference room was the conference room of the hospital. It was a Sunday. There was a number of people. The group of people (clear enough now??), went to the conference room because it was more convenient to watch the NFL match, rather than be gathered around Lance's bed. The people present: Frankie and Betsy Andreu, Chris Carmichael, Stephanie McIllvain, Carmichael's then girlfriend Paige, and Lance's then girlfriend, Lisa Shiels. The NFL match was between the Dallas Cowboys and the Miami Dolphins. Is this clear enough for you? 
You attack me...yet you have not addressed the actual content of what I say. Even as late as this week, you were wrong about the lawsuit for LAC, wrong about the Hospital Room (clear enough for you?!!), and you still can't even give ONE example to substantiate your claims of David Walsh being a 'hack'.
But you tell us that David Walsh is a 'Libelous wanker', eventhough he wasn't even sued!!!

And did you get extra maths lessons for that 99.75% you came up with?

Stop ignoring the points I've raised and address them. And when you're wrong, admit it...

And give us the examples of unfounded speculation. I'll take anyone on on this issue as regards how founded or unfounded it is. You are so ignorant and lacking in knowledge of the sport, it's almost beyond belief. The hospital room being the latest example. And you still think Walsh wrote that article. It's not even a challenge to debate this with you, because you rarely have any facts straight.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> It begs the question--have either of you ever been riders? If so, why don't you contribute some of your abundant "knowledge" to other forums?


Have I ever been a rider? I did my first race in 1982. Have raced my bike in Spain, Italy, France...a whole bunch of places. It was my life for about 10 years If you actually did a search around these forums you would see that I post often some of my travels and in Pro Cycling. I love the sport and only want it to improve. 

I seldom attack individual riders except when they try invent outlandish media spin to cover up their misdeeds. I completely understand the pressure riders have to dope, what I do not understand is the need to try to shift the blame when caught or to attack others simply for telling the truth. 

Unlike you I know 5 of the 7 people in the hospital that day. Two of them are still friends who I talk to weekly.

As for behavior, believing in myths is never healthy.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Mate, I do read every fourth line of every third post! That puts my level of patience 99.75% higher than anyone else who comes across your obsessive nonsense. 

Did you answer the question: "do you ride a bike?" . Have you ever contributed any knowledge or advice to the RBR forum that was not an obsessive figment somehow related to dope?

Consider the possibility that there may be life outside of the dope forum.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate, I do read every fourth line of every third post! That puts my level of patience 99.75% higher than anyone else who comes across your obsessive nonsense.
> 
> Did you answer the question: "do you ride a bike?" . Have you ever contributed any knowledge or advice to the RBR forum that was not an obsessive figment somehow related to dope?
> 
> Consider the possibility that there may be life outside of the dope forum.


Swift, I'll give you one clue here. If you want to question what I've done in my sporting life, or if I've ridden a bike, you're on very thin ground. All I'll say, is that sport, as a competitor to a very high level, has played an integral part of my life, for almost 20 years. And I wouldn't have had it any other way.
'Obsessive figment'? You're the one with the continuously false information...

Your usual diatribe is to label me a 'hater', an 'obsessive', or something along these lines. This only underlines your own desperation because you can't refute what I say. So your only available defence is the ad hominem attack, which Lance is proven so adept at over the years. 

And answer the questions I've put to you. About the examples of untruths. How long, in all honesty, have you followed the sport? 
And it appears I'm in very good company with my views on this topic, both in this forum, and outside of it, because the people I have in mind are very noble, honest gentlemen.

Give me even ONE example of what I've said about Lance, which is 'nonsense'... 
And also give me even ONE example of what David Walsh has said about Lance which is untrue...

I love cycling, but I cannot love and admire people when all evidence points to them being dopers. And I am not going to wait for a farcical organisation like the UCI to intervene, when the guilt of riders is a direct strike against their own reputations. Have you ever heard of conflicts of interest? In the 90s, Professor Conconi was officially working for the IOC to come up with a test for EPO, whilst he was giving athletes the EPO in the first place. By the way, Conconi was a mentor for Michele Ferrari. Many riders these days are clean, but doping is still a huge problem, and whether we like it or not, is the main obstacle facing the sport. How can you possibly ignore this central issue, and pretend it doesn't exist, if you had any knowledge whatsoever? There are clean riders getting scre**d by dopers, and in your eyes, the fans are meant to turn a blind eye and roar them up the side of a mountain as though they were heroes. 
I bring you back to Tom Boonen's words last year about him having given up on ALL the GC contenders, except Cadel Evans. Words of a loser in your eyes no doubt. And what about Stephen Swart's words I posted two days ago? About never chaging some people's views. Oh, and I've no doubt you haven't a clue who he is. He admitted doping in the '90s whilst on the Motorola team. And a certain Lance Armstrong was a central figure, on that team, in deciding to dope. They felt they needed to do it in order to compete with the same weapons.
But he's a loser like the rest of us I guess...

David Walsh once said to Paul Kimmage, as he was starting out in journalism, 'Paul, never run from the truth, no matter how hard that is.' You don't need to be a journalist, in order to adhere to this piece of advice...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

HikenBike said:


> To me the libel suit is just one more puff of smoke surrouding LA. He sues everyone in order to protect his brand. It is irrelevant in the big scheme of LA doping allegations.
> 
> In the book is a subpoenaed chat conversation between Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu. Of course at the time of this chat, they both thought that it would remain private.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that conversation, which was never volunteered, but had to be subpoenaed, is incredibly damaging. I can't see how any Lance supporter can disregard it. It comes from two riders who rode in the same team, and were still in close contact with riders on the team (USP at the time). And the fact that it was not volunteered shows again the authenticity of it - just two people having, what they thought at the time, was a private IM conversation. 
Vaughters is someone I admire an awful lot, but I would love to question him about the way he handled this conversation in the aftermath.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> You have been given you links, that you chose to ignore, that directly contradict Wikipedia....which has no peer review, or anything close to it.


Geez, I almost forgot.

The Sunday Times has settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Digger and 'pinkt, I don't know how you guys can let this wanker continue to get to you. Ignore him. He might not go away, but he'll just be braying.

JSR


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> To be fair, the one with the Times was settled right after the judge ruled that the Times did indeed imply Lance was a doper. Therefore their defense to Lance's libel suit would necessitate proving it: they apparently didn't feel they could do so and settled instead. If they thought there was enough proof of Lance cheating, they could have defended themselves against the libel claim (you can't be held libel for publishing the truth). In other words, the Times was not willing to stand behind the allegations in Walsh's book and their subsequent article about it.


Pacificaslim,
To prove libel, one needs to not only prove that the information is defamatory and incorrect, he must also prove that the defendant knew they were lying at the time of publication.

It is clear that the Times knew that the article was a lie at the time of publication and chose to publish it anyway. A good tabloid never lets the truth stand in the path of a good bit of sensationalism but in this case, they could not even pretend they were ignorant of the truth. They were caught outright.

Other tabloids can lie all they want as long as it can't be proven that they know or knew the truth at the time of publication. It's pretty hard to prove that a journalist knows anything at all.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Pacificaslim,
> To prove libel, one needs to not only prove that the information is defamatory and incorrect, he must also prove that the defendant knew they were lying at the time of publication.
> 
> It is clear that the Times knew that the article was a lie at the time of publication and chose to publish it anyway. A good tabloid never lets the truth stand in the path of a good bit of sensationalism but in this case, they could not even pretend they were ignorant of the truth. They were caught outright.
> ...


JSR is correct.....but I cannot resist

We are talking about UK libel laws, not US. You do not have to prove the Times knew they were lying only that what was printed was incorrect. Celebrities world wide use the UK as jurisdiction for libel because of this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-are-stifling-free-speech-says-un-894519.html

The fact that despite the UK's loose libel laws, Lance did not feel confident enough in his case that he had to settle should tell you something. He also did not pursue the two books written by Walsh that were published in the UK. You can continue to embarrass yourself if you like, but at least have a point.


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

bigpink and digger - keep up the good work! Your knowledge is appreciated.

Swiftsolo - your arguments would carry more weight if you responded to the points raised, instead of resorting to the name calling.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> Pacificaslim,
> To prove libel, one needs to not only prove that the information is defamatory and incorrect, he must also prove that the defendant knew they were lying at the time of publication.
> 
> It is clear that the Times knew that the article was a lie at the time of publication and chose to publish it anyway. A good tabloid never lets the truth stand in the path of a good bit of sensationalism but in this case, they could not even pretend they were ignorant of the truth. They were caught outright.
> ...


When did The Times become a "tabloid"? It is one of the major broadsheets in the UK. On a par with the NY Times not the National Inquirer.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Digger28 said:


> Yeah, that conversation, which was never volunteered, but had to be subpoenaed, is incredibly damaging. I can't see how any Lance supporter can disregard it. It comes from two riders who rode in the same team, and were still in close contact with riders on the team (USP at the time). And the fact that it was not volunteered shows again the authenticity of it - just two people having, what they thought at the time, was a private IM conversation.
> Vaughters is someone I admire an awful lot, but I would love to question him about the way he handled this conversation in the aftermath.


Is this what you are referring to?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

HikenBike said:


> Is this what you are referring to?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/


Yes...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Pacificaslim,
> To prove libel, one needs to not only prove that the information is defamatory and incorrect, he must also prove that the defendant knew they were lying at the time of publication.
> 
> It is clear that the Times knew that the article was a lie at the time of publication and chose to publish it anyway. A good tabloid never lets the truth stand in the path of a good bit of sensationalism but in this case, they could not even pretend they were ignorant of the truth. They were caught outright.
> ...


Firstly, even if the above post by you was accurate, which it is not, it still does not mean that Walsh was libellous, as you've said he is. The reason - he did not write the article.

If the article was lies, why did the two books get published? And why hasn't Lance won damages, as a result of the two books? 

To JSR, I appreciate your words because you're absolutely correct. However, when he slates someone like David Walsh, by calling him a 'Bob Woodward wannabe', and a 'libellous wanker', I find it difficult to not say something. David Walsh is noted for being a gentleman and a journalist of great honesty and integrity. He has had his own tragedy to deal with many years ago, and this has played a huge role in the journalist he is today.

I've bought the Sunday Times hardcopy for over a decade, and to have it labelled above, as a tabloid, is so ignorant and factually inaccurate to be almost beyond belief. Like the time Lance called the French newspaper, Le Monde, a tabloid - probably the most high brow newspaper in mainland Europe. But some people in America, who have not read these newspapers, actually believe this tripe.


If any of the Lance fans actually bothered to read what David has said about Lance, they would see David has been very compassionate in his treatment of Lance. FLTL contains some very endearing stories regarding Lance, e.g. the Rolex watch gift to Emma O'Reilly. 
He also talks about understanding why Lance doped, simply because the environment in cycling at this time, meant, that in order to win or be competitive, one had to dope. He speaks about Lance not establishing this environment - it was there long before Lance.

Lance meanwhile, has called David Walsh a 'fu**ing little troll', 'the worst journalist I know', and said, 'I just hate the guy'. David has NEVER engaged in this kind of vitriolic behaviour. One of the other more notable smeer campaigns carried out by Lance's team, was to insinuate that Emma O'Reilly was 'loose' - and that's being kind. in reality, a number of riders from USP have praised her absolute professionalism. Greg Lemond has been labelled a drunk. 

And the journalist from L'Equipe (Damien Ressiot), who investigated the EPO positive from '99, is also somehwat understadning of Lance's circumstances:
"He's no saint, but I totally understand why he did it. How could anyone have competed in the '99 Tour de France and not engage in a practice allowed by the whole system? Can all of his successes be explained by doping? I don't know. What I can't stand is the deceit. 
We (journalists) sell stories of extraordinary achievement but when we learn they are not that, we don't like to take them back. I feel I have done my job as a journalist, and as a profession, we need to stop building dreams on false premises."

L'Equipe called Lance a cheat and a liar , in the EPO positives from the '99 tour article, and at the end of the article asked him to sue them. He did not even attempt this.
Lance failed in his lawsuit regarding LAC and the denial insertion. He dropped the lawsuit about the book as a whole, before court. 
He didn't even attempt to sue in relation to FLTL.
But this didn't stop Lance from saying to the media, "I will say that I am looking forward to the upcoming trials, where I am fully confident we will win." He never did announce the cancelling and withdrawal of the lawsuits.
As Bigpinkt and myself have said many times, he had very limited success in relation to the article in the Sunday Times - it was in no way unequivocal for either side.
One thing on the hospital room I would like to add. Obviously Lance and his lawyers were on the same side here. Lance testified that doctors never came into his room while the people in question were present. On the other hand, Timothy Herman, his attorney, seemed to accept two doctors were in the room and that their conversation with Lance led to a misunderstanding that might explain everything. He said to Betsy Andreu, maybe you heard the doctors talk about EPO for cancer treatment. 
Herman was later quoted as saying, "It's very possible there could've been mention of steroids and EPO in this conversation with these two doctors indicating either the current regimen, or the regimen that Armstrong was gonna be subject to...."
There are no variables in the truth. Obvious inconsistencies exist here though.
Stephanie McIlvain said something about Lance which I think is the very essence of this whole thing and resonates with many people;
"And the part that pisses me off about the whole thing, even if we were close right now (Lance and herself), it's how many people he has given false hope to, and I think that is the most disgusting thing ever for someone to do...From somebody who has a child with a handicap, you look up to people who've gone through the same thing, and you look for hope and you look for strength and for him to be doing that to those poor people who look up to him and honestly think that he's doing this 'cause he's superman and....it kills me."

People need and deserve to know the truth. Without the help of some fine investigative journalists, we will struggle to attain this.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Soooooooooooooooo


what are you all going to do if he wins the Giro? Or the TDF now? I mean, he would have to pass all the new tests right? What if he wins or comes in a top 10 - does that count? If you're correct about your assumptions on LA's physical limits ( no idea how you'd calculate that info without access ) what if he kicks everyone's ass? 

I just don't hear a lot of protest from the pro ranks on Armstrong's return ..... doesn't that say something to people it may directly influence? For the most part I think everyone wants to move on ..... some just can't let go


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

CARBON110 said:


> Soooooooooooooooo
> 
> 
> what are you all going to do if he wins the Giro? Or the TDF now? I mean, he would have to pass all the new tests right? What if he wins or comes in a top 10 - does that count? If you're correct about your assumptions on LA's physical limits ( no idea how you'd calculate that info without access ) what if he kicks everyone's ass?
> ...


Well the tests were shown to be useless at the Vuelta and Giro. And Ricco still passed a number of tests at the Tour. Piepoli, Schumacher and Kohl didn't originally fail any of these tests. CERA has been shown to leave without trace extremely quickly. Anyway, it's blood doping which I've no doubt Lance will re-engage in, which if it is one's own blood, is practically impossible to detect. So, no I won't be relying on tests.
Without access to his physical limits?
Okay let's start.
His VO2 Max was tested five times in the space of a decade. Four of the five times it was in the 70s, and once in the early 80s (81.2). It was actually 71.5 in 1999. Lance's success started in '99 with a VO2 Max of just 71.5. The average pro team is going to have at least several athletes with a VO2 Max equal to 71 and higher. Lemond's was in the early 90s, and Lance produced Wattages over a prolonged period, which were far in excess of Lemond.
Lance has put out this tripe about the weight loss. In November 1992 he weighed 78.9kgs. In November 1999, he weighed 79.7kgs. Professor Coyle has Lance weighing at 75.1kgs in September 1993 , around the time of the Worlds. Lance has been quoted directly as saying the following to a trbunal: "If I got down to the low 74s (for the Tour), I would be happy." Lance claims to have lost up to 20IBs pre and post-cancer. He lost approximately two pounds.
And then we have his performances in the Tours pre-1999. He was losing on a regular basis, up to 20 minutes in the moutains, some stages were up on 28mins and 33mins. Time trials, he regularly lost up on 6mins in a distance of around 55kms (6.03, 6.24, 6.23, etc)

The other line thrown out by Lance and his fan club is his change in cadence. However, the higher the cadence, the higher the demand on oxygen.
Protest from the Pro ranks. Well Vaughters wasn't exactly glowing in his response. But, look at the treatment of Linus. Look at what Lance has said about the guy, and Kloden alos ripped him apart two weeks ago. 
People just want ot move on? So we should just turn a blind eye to past wrongs. How can we learn from the past if we don't get it out in the open. The people who want to move on are usually the Lance fans. In a court of law so, should judges just turn around to the accused and say, 'it happened in the past, there's nothing to be gained here, and promise you won't do it again?' 
"The best future will be the one carved from the mistakes of the past."

If he wins again...I will personally be disgusted, as I am when I see Contador winning. But others are willing to turn a blind eye and continue cheering him mindlessly.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> If he wins again...I will personally be disgusted, as I am when I see Contador winning. But others are willing to turn a blind eye and continue cheering him mindlessly.


What makes you think it's mindless? Are you so convinced that your own world view is the only possible one that an intelligent person could hold? If so, there is no point in any of us having a conversation with you.

I prefer to come to my own conclusions about what is important to me while allowing others to do the same. And I prefer to refrain from the self-righteousness that would insult others for daring to hold a different opinion.

The bottom line for me is that I don't like speculation. Until it is either proven in a court of law or the governing body sanctions a rider, I will consider them a legitimate competitor, worthy of support from fans. Could they be dopers? Of course. But until they are proven to be so (and i don't mean by the press or internet forums), they are legal riders.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> What makes you think it's mindless? Are you so convinced that your own world view is the only possible one that an intelligent person could hold? If so, there is no point in any of us having a conversation with you.
> 
> I prefer to come to my own conclusions about what is important to me while allowing others to do the same. And I prefer to refrain from the self-righteousness that would insult others for daring to hold a different opinion.
> 
> The bottom line for me is that I don't like speculation. Until it is either proven in a court of law or the governing body sanctions a rider, I will consider them a legitimate competitor, worthy of support from fans. Could they be dopers? Of course. But until they are proven to be so (and i don't mean by the press or internet forums), they are legal riders.


Well, in that case, I'd advise you to go and research the sport, it's riders, the governing bodies, the DSs, physiology, etc etc...and then come back saying you'll wait for the UCI. 

It's all very well to talk about disregarding speculation, but give me one example of this 'speculation', and we can debated it's veracity...Because there's an awful lot of fact out there about these riders....


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

There may be "evidence" our there that rises to the level of "facts" for you, but for me, until the sanctioning body itself declares it so, then I'm not going to be going around saying they violated the rules of the sport. It's simply not my decision to make.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> ." Lance claims to have lost up to 20IBs pre and post-cancer. He lost approximately two pounds.
> 
> 
> If he wins again...I will personally be disgusted, as I am when I see Contador winning. But others are willing to turn a blind eye and continue cheering him mindlessly.


In your established tradition, you've pegged the ignorameter once again. Lance claimed that cancer changed his physique and redistributed his weight. To suggest that this was a lie because at some point in time (post cancer) he weighed only 2 lbs less than he did pre cancer is typical of your inability to employ any deductive reasoning skills. 

Try this test:
Is it possible to lose 20 lbs while fighting cancer and to weigh nearly the same later?

Try this second test:
compare pictures of Lance pre and post cancer and let us know if you notice anything different? 

The logical extension of your rather random reasoning about future competition is that in order to be a winner in your eyes, one must be slower than everyone else. Perhaps the last guy to finish should stand on the top of the podium?

Your life seems completely tied up in manufacturing and distoting evidence that legitimate cycle competition is not possible. Does this obsessive negativity extend to all competition? Are there any current winners in any current endeavor who are not cheaters?

Have you considered moving on to the Croquette Mallet Review forum (I'm pretty sure those guys are all dopers)?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> In your established tradition, you've pegged the ignorameter once again. Lance claimed that cancer changed his physique and redistributed his weight. To suggest that this was a lie because at some point in time (post cancer) he weighed only 2 lbs less than he did pre cancer is typical of your inability to employ any deductive reasoning skills.
> 
> Try this test:
> Is it possible to lose 20 lbs while fighting cancer and to weigh nearly the same later?
> ...


Ah back again, and on to this particular topic. More insults about my 'obsessive negativity'.You always do rush off when you're stuck for something to say, or when you realise you're wrong. Maybe you should answer the questions put to you for once.
If you want to deduce all of the above from my post. Then deduce away. Don't care, because you're showing yourself to be one of the most stupid people I've ever come across on any forum. 
Give me one example here of me 'manufacturing evidence'. All of these figures are in the public domain, if you bothered to read. 
If you can't read, subtract figures, and follow posts, then there's nothing I can do for you. 
Professor Ed Coyle has done a paper on Lance, which has been laughed at in the Sports Science community, and which Lance has used to defend himself with. Lance gave him access over a prolonged period of time. He testified on Lance's behalf at the SCA trial. He outlined how Lance could still beat doped athletes, whilst clean, because over a period (1992-1999) , Armstrong achieved an 18 percent improvement. He said that an eight percent improvement came about due to REDUCING his body weight (Redistribution is not mentioned even by Coyle). I've showed how he only, at best, lost two pounds. Coyle testified about Lance racing the Tour at 72kgs, yet Lance himself was happy if it was 74. So to suggest that 8% increase came from weight loss, has no basis whatsoever. The scientists use weighing scales. You use anecdotal evidence from photographs. Let me guess, you saw the picture from his book of when he raised his arms crossing the line of the Worlds in 1993, and took the caption to be gospel. 

Ed Coyle, and Lance, tried to explain his increase in performance, and how he could beat doped athletes. They put forward the weight loss theory, as one reason, and it is bullsh**. Hope you managed to follow this. 

Oh and you might want to contact Ed Coyle about the change in physique and weight re-distribution, because his theory about the weight loss itself is in trouble, and he clearly hasn't thought about it with the same clarity as you. You could get yourself into an academic paper, and that paper would then be treated with the same disdain as Coyle's own study on Lance!!!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Yeah, Lance brought it right back up to 174 pounds after cancer. In his book, "Its not About The Bike" he even talks about playing golf all day. He contemplates retiring throughout 1998. He really did not "benefit" at all from cancer or weight loss at the time he started racing again. It was a full 13 months before lance raced after cancer, and that is out of his own mouth on Fora TV. 

Certainly, if someone impartial and working for *FREE* could get accurate VO2 max power outputs, FTP power profiles on Lance; that would shut him down once and for all.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

The instant message exchange between Vaughters and Andreu demands to be read over and over again. It's just eye popping the things they say. At one point one or the other relays a story about Lance and Bruneel flushing Floyd Landis' "rest day blood" down the toilet of the team bus, in front of Floyd, as retaliation for signing with Phonak.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Ah back again, and on to this particular topic. More insults about my 'obsessive negativity'.You always do rush off when you're stuck for something to say, or when you realise you're wrong. Maybe you should answer the questions put to you for once.
> If you want to deduce all of the above from my post. Then deduce away. Don't care, because you're showing yourself to be one of the most stupid people I've ever come across on any forum.
> Give me one example here of me 'manufacturing evidence'. All of these figures are in the public domain, if you bothered to read.
> If you can't read, subtract figures, and follow posts, then there's nothing I can do for you.
> ...


Let me see now--If I write a paper claiming that LA's improvement was due to chewing bubble gum and that claim is found to be questionable, how does that make LA a liar? Has Lance ever said anything about anything that was not a lie if your view?

Is it your view that a couple of anonomous RBR dope forum posters should be appointed to decide who is clean and who is not (based, of course, on their knowledge--- gleaned from their sister-in-laws hairdresser and a series of paid tabloid journalist / fabricators) or, should the governing authorities make that decision?

I truly hope that your method of determining guilt doesn't make a comeback. It's been three centuries since we last burned witches. We developed a court system that is generally accepted by rational people now. With some education and luck, you'll likely grow to accept that system also.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me see now--If I write a paper claiming that LA's improvement was due to chewing bubble gum and that claim is found to be questionable, how does that make LA a liar? Has Lance ever said anything about anything that was not a lie if your view?
> 
> Is it your view that a couple of anonomous RBR dope forum posters should be appointed to decide who is clean and who is not (based, of course, on their knowledge--- gleaned from their sister-in-laws hairdresser and a series of paid tabloid journalist / fabricators) or, should the governing authorities make that decision?
> 
> I truly hope that your method of determining guilt doesn't make a comeback. It's been three centuries since we last burned witches. We developed a court system that is generally accepted by rational people now. With some education and luck, you'll likely grow to accept that system also.


Insults when you can't discount what I say...So consistent...Every second post is the say for you, because it take about two posts to decide that you were actually wrong, so the only way of defending yourself is the use of the ad hominem attack. Over and over again. Rarely do you stay on topic, simply because even in your own stupid mind, you realise how wrong you invariably are.

How does it make Lance a liar?
How about this DIRECT quote from the man himself in the year 2000.
"Physically, it (cancer) was a good thing for me. I changed completely as an athlete. My body changed, my style on the bike changed. If you look at my weight. My body weight in the Tour de France this year, I'll be 20 pounds lighter that I was in 1996. That's significant weight when you're talking about going over the Alps and the Pyrenees and things like the Tour."

And the court of law you talk about? Well Lance's team used this kind of lies and bullsh** in one.

Another mention to the Salem Witches!! It's been a good four of five days since they were mentioned by you. Bravo, you fool.
Maybe in future though, in order to support your own argument, you can stay on topic for once, instead of engaging in these kind of attacks. If you stay on topic, you might learn actually learn something


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Insults when you can't discount what I say...So consistent...Every second post is the say for you, because it take about two posts to decide that you were actually wrong, so the only way of defending yourself is the use of the ad hominem attack. Over and over again. Rarely do you stay on topic, simply because even in your own stupid mind, you realise how wrong you invariably are.
> 
> And the court of law you talk about? Well Lance's team used this kind of lies and bullsh** in one.
> Another mention to the Salem Witches!! It's been a good four of five days since they were mentioned by you. Bravo, you fool.
> Maybe in future though, in order to support your own argument, you can stay on topic for once, instead of engaging in these kind of attacks. If you stay on topic, you might learn actually learn something


Ah mate, flattery (and inane wankage) will get you nowhere!

Maybe you missed the article in The Guardian:
*The Sunday Times settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.*


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

When did Lance actually get hooked up with Ferrari? It must have been pre-Vuelta 1998.

I have Lance's VO2 max stated by Chris Carmichael to be 81ml/kg in June 1999... 

Only 81: "On The last Tuesday Before the Tour it was 81ml/kg" He talked to Chris and Chris admitted to this...

His VO2 max then was 6.0L/m

Coyle states that Lance's FTP is 77% of his VO2 max.

Coyle (September 1999) also states Lance produces 403 watts at 5.1L/M of oxygen.(84%)

During The 1999 Tour, Lance's FTP was repeatitively recorded at nearly 500 watts.

Thats a LARGE discrepency.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Ah mate, flattery (and inane wankage) will get you nowhere!
> 
> Maybe you missed the article in The Guardian:
> *The Sunday Times settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.
> ...



Ah the quote again. Go back and read over the thread. You are bordering on the mental though if you can't see the uselessness of the above quote to your argument. It has been pointed out to you why it is useless, over and over and over again. Yet you cling to this line, just like you still won't accept that David Walsh didn't write the article. All the other judgements which went against Lance, you conveniently ignore. 

So, yeah. You cling to this. :thumbsup:

And you might want to explain why Lance had no success in the curtailing of the books written by David Walsh. And why he dropped the lawsuit before going to court.

Seriously, don't want anything more to do with you on this forum. There's no possible way, you are, what we say in my country, 'playing with the full deck'. Just no way. Your level of ignorance in general is mind boggling. 

So I shall at last be taking the advice of JSR, and you will be the donkey braying in the wind.

It's all the one anyway. You NEVER answer questions, or stay on topic, because your knowledge is so poor. You just resort to generic insults to distract from you being invariably wrong. I ask anyone to go back and read the posts I've covered and they will see the pattern. I provide evidence, facts, and references to support my points. You don't like what you're reading, can't refute it, stray off topic and then launch into the following: You say the likes of me are, 'wankers', 'haters', 'jealous losers', 'perpetual whiners', and 'obsessed with bringing down winners'. Walsh is continuously called a 'wanker' and 'libellous wanker'. The newspapers are called 'tabloids'. References to '9/11 Conspiracy theorists', 'Bob Woodward wannabes', and 'Salem Witch Hunts' are also common.

So bray away....


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Seriously Digger, ALL of your points/mine would do nothing if they were taken public.

The US DEA is overloaded... Lance is pure PR.

Walsh tried and no one wants to know.

Steroid Nation!! www.cuttingedgemuscle.com

Google Meth, Cocaine.

You can connect with other dealers!!!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Seriously Digger, ALL of your points/mine would do nothing if they were taken public.
> 
> The US DEA is overloaded... Lance is pure PR.
> 
> ...


Connect with other dealers?!! Ha?!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

F1nut said:


> When did Lance actually get hooked up with Ferrari? It must have been pre-Vuelta 1998.
> 
> I have Lance's VO2 max stated by Chris Carmichael to be 81ml/kg in June 1999...
> 
> ...


He got hooked up with Ferrari pre-cancer in the winter of 1995. He had a very strong spring in 1996. Frankie said he turned up for training camp in 1996 like a 'linebacker'. Apparently he was incredibly powerful and nobody could stay with him in training. They asked Lance about the new muscles, and he said that he'd underestimated the effect which lifting weights would have!!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Hmm... Ferrari's Trial and Error? 

Was looking at some FTP watts/Kilo figures...

Cadal Evans was at 5.7 this year, Sastre 6.4 or so...

Lemond was around 5.8 in his day. I seriously am starting to doubt Lemond was actually clean. Common. I dont think Phinney is either. And even little names get busted: Jimmy Casper for corticoids.

Its not humanly possible for anyone to really get passed 420 watts FTP cleanly or more than 5.8 watts/kilo from what the drug forums say. Thats just hearsay but... Those guys are on the sh**!!

Tell me Phinney won that worlds TT with less than 420.

And tell me he cares about others when he sand-bagged his way to 25 cat 3 wins in a row. When was Lemond's 92.5 VO2 max recorded, What year was that exactly?


If you actually google , meth-amphetamine its will have some funny results...

like, "Tag and discover new products", "connect with others that use"


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Ah the quote again. Go back and read over the thread. You are bordering on the mental though if you can't see the uselessness of the above quote to your argument. It has been pointed out to you why it is useless, over and over and over again. Yet you cling to this line, just like you still won't accept that David Walsh didn't write the article. All the other judgements which went against Lance, you conveniently ignore.
> 
> So, yeah. You cling to this. :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Mate,
Your lack of deductive reasoning skills have allowed you to overlook that the Sunday Times essentially admitted in court that implying that Lance had taken drugs was libelous and they attempted to dance around the fact that they had made such am implication in referencing Walsh's book.

The court rejected their attempt and the Times was forced to apologize, claiming: "it never intended to accuse him (LA) of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression,"

It is clear that, in the courts eyes, these people lacked evidence that Lance used drugs

The full text is below in case you missed it.

I come back to the question: Is there any way to hold a bicycle race in which you will not declair the winner a doper? As far as I can tell, your answer is no. Is that correct?

The Guardian:
The Sunday Times settled with Lance Armstrong after he sued the paper for libel over a 2004 article which referred to a book, LA Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the *meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance*. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.

*"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression," the paper's lawyers said.*


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> Your lack of deductive reasoning skills have allowed you to overlook that the Sunday Times essentially admitted in court that implying that Lance had taken drugs was libelous and they attempted to dance around the fact that they had made such am implication in referencing Walsh's book.
> 
> The court rejected their attempt and the Times was forced to apologize, claiming: "it never intended to accuse him (LA) of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression,"
> ...


I am not sure why you continue to embarass yourself with this. 

-The Times did not "Admit" their article was Libelous
-The Times was not "Forced" to apologize
-The courts pre-trail rules in NO way said that "these people lacked evidence that Lance used drugs"

Unlike what you have written in your multiple incorrect rants

-the book has been NEVER shown to be libelous in court
-Walsh NEVER lost a liable case to Lance
-The Times NEVER lost a liable case to Lance
-Walsh NEVER wrote the times Times article
-The court NEVER ordered the Times to make a settlement to Lance


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Come on. Read between the lines. Lance sued them for accusing him of cheating. They tried to get out of it by saying, "we didn't accuse him of taking drugs." The judge said, "nice try, but you really did accuse him". And then the Times quickly settled. Our contention is that they did so because they were unwilling to pursue their only defense left: that what they wrote was true and therefore not libelous. Do you have an alternative explanation for the Times' behavior?

None of this means Lance is a doper or that he isn't. It's not about that. All that this shows is that the Times wasn't willing to stand behind the accusations of their staff writer or the staffer whose byline was on the newspaper article (which as any journalist knows doesn't necessarily mean he was the one who wrote the article). In fact, they went on record apologizing to Lance for daring to suggest such a thing. Either they are cowards, or they know that the case is much harder to make than you guys on this thread believe.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Come on. Read between the lines. Lance sued them for accusing him of cheating. They tried to get out of it by saying, "we didn't accuse him of taking drugs." The judge said, "nice try, but you really did accuse him". And then the Times quickly settled. Our contention is that they did so because they were unwilling to pursue their only defense left: that what they wrote was true and therefore not libelous. Do you have an alternative explanation for the Times' behavior?


You conveniently leave out the first ruling that was for the Times and said that their article did NOT infer that Lance doped and was in the public interest. While the second ruling was in Lance's favor the fact that the court was able to draw both conclusions meant that his case was not in any way going to be an easy one. He was going up against some of the best in the business, he had already lost a key ruling, and would have been liable for some large expenses if he lost. His lawyers wisely took the opportunity to settle and fake a "Victory". Lance somehow spins this into "We sued David Walsh in the high court and we won that case". The spin clearly worked as there are plenty of fans who believe this lie.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

The second ruling was from a higher court, right? Clearly Lance had the momentum. 

None of this really matters. It's just funny how you guys don't recognize you are also "spinning" the story to suit your own opinions.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

LOL

We are reading all of Walsh's books here in the USA!!

Pharmstrong lost!! Dont need to look anything up when I'm reading the book!!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> The second ruling was from a higher court, right?


No, it was not. If he thought he could win he would have continued and made Millions of $$, instead he gave up just like he did with all of his other Walsh related lawsuits.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

If the Times thought they could win, they would have continued instead of publicly humiliating themselves with an apology and unwillingness to support the claims of their employee's book.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

pacificaslim said:


> If the Times thought they could win, they would have continued instead of publicly humiliating themselves with an apology and unwillingness to support the claims of their employee's book.


No. It's called Risk Management.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> If the Times thought they could win, they would have continued instead of publicly humiliating themselves with an apology and unwillingness to support the claims of their employee's book.


Unlike Armstrong, who would have won millions if he could have proved his case, the Times would get little more then court costs. All they had to do was say sorry for the confusion and not pay a dime. It was an easy choice. 

Walsh was not an employee of the Times at the time. He had taken a leave from the Times when he wrote and promoted his book as he did not want the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The fact remains. Walsh's books have been published in multiple languages and countries and have survived all legal challenges.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> I am not sure why you continue to embarass yourself with this.
> 
> -The Times did not "Admit" their article was Libelous
> -The Times was not "Forced" to apologize
> ...


So let me see. Because you claim the Guardian is lying multiple times, it makes it true? We are to beleive a couple of notorious anti-racing zealots over the Guardian?

Let me clear this up for you. You can post your claim how ever many times you'd like. It was BS the first time and it will be BS the 100th time.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> So let me see. Because you claim the Guardian is lying multiple times, it makes it true? We are to beleive a couple of notorious anti-racing zealots over the Guardian?
> 
> Let me clear this up for you. You can post your claim how ever many times you'd like. It was BS the first time and it will be BS the 100th time.


I have given you links to the BBC, Cyclingnews, CFA, and Cyclingweekly. Each shows how incorrect your position is. 

So far you have done nothing to back up your claims. Please provide SOME evidence that

-the book has been shown to be libelous in court
-the Times knew that the article was a lie at the time of publication and chose to publish it anyway
-Walsh lost a liable case to Lance
-The Times lost a liable case to Lance
-Walsh wrote the times Times article
-The court ordered the Times to make a settlement to Lance

You make all these wild claims yet only back them up with insults and no evidence.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

pacificaslim said:


> If the Times thought they could win, they would have continued instead of publicly humiliating themselves with an apology and unwillingness to support the claims of their employee's book.


Here in the UK, if you lose a civil case, you very often pick up ALL the costs. Even if you win the Judge can decide that costs are borne equally, making it a risk to continue even if you are right legally and morally. So the judges comments at the hearing you all are discussing possibly was his way of telling the parties involved "look, no one is going to win ths, cut your losses and make a deal"


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> Here in the UK, if you lose a civil case, you very often pick up ALL the costs. Even if you win the Judge can decide that costs are borne equally, making it a risk to continue even if you are right legally and morally. So the judges comments at the hearing you all are discussing possibly was his way of telling the parties involved "look, no one is going to win ths, cut your losses and make a deal"


As someone who lives alongside the UK, I can second this completely.

However, what I find amusing here, is that certain people are focusing on the article, when TWO books were published on the matter, and had no legal problems whatsoever. 
Lance dropped one lawsuit and ended up being fined by the Judge for the other, in his attempts to curb the first book's publication. He didn't even attempt curbing the publication of the second. And needless to say, the two books were far more revealing and explosive than that article. 

Also, talking about articles. By far the most damaging article to Lance was the L'Equipe one with the EPO positives. They called him, in the article, a liar and cheat, and asked him to sue them. Funny how Lance let this one slide....


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Also, talking about articles. By far the most damaging article to Lance was the L'Equipe one with the EPO positives. They called him, in the article, a liar and cheat, and asked him to sue them. Funny how Lance let this one slide....


LOL 

The UCI saved lance once again. "Investigating the samples." Sort of like letting that Kennert positive slide for 3 days while Pharmstrong got his backdated prescription LOL.


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

I am about 2/3 of the way through From Lance to Landis, and, overall, I find it pretty intriguing. I do, however, find that, at times, the way in which Walsh presents his arguments becomes a bit stale. Though I have not yet completed my undergraduate education at a university level (hopefully I will not have to lie about graduating as Hamilton did), I find the way in which he incriminates Lance to be tiresome. I am not a Lance fan, though I am looking forward to seeing how his “return to cycling” pans out; there are many cyclists which I am a much, much bigger fan of. It is hard for me to accurately express how I feel about Walsh’s book so far. I guess I was just expecting something a bit less redundant. I am impressed by the amount of substantiating evidence that Walsh has compiled and I recognize the abundance of journalism and research that must have gone into composing such a work. I guess I just find the one-sided way in which it is presented, as the book has progressed, (taking small portions of interviews, conversations… as a part of a much more complex dialogue is not my idea of first-class corroboration) lackluster. I mean, sometimes I just need to force myself to laugh at some of the rash statements that Walsh makes. In the beginning of the book, he seems to compliment Lance/justify Lance’s actions, but as I near the book’s end, it seems like he is becoming more and more accusatory. I am sorry, but I am not interested in hearing about Lance’s lawsuit against L.A. Confidential as a substantiation of his doping – I find it irrelevant and taxing (though it is a little comical). I also dislike the way in which he praises Andreu. I like Andreu, but, like the rest of the peloton, he doped, and I don’t think the extreme ways in which he serves as a contrast to Lance is entirely compelling. The whole sport was pretty darn disgusting – and for that reason, I don’t view Armstrong as a complete criminal as some do. I really don’t know… I am not looking to agree/disagree with anybody on these forums. Unlike some persons who post here regularly, many of whom seem to be much more informed than I, I am just not one to take EVERYTHING that Walsh says as complete fact. His book, has, however, reaffirmed my belief that pretty much every winning result in the mid-nineties and early twenty-first century should be viewed in a discrediting light. This book has made me even more “over” doping in cycling. I find Walsh’s read interesting, but it is getting old. Feel free to share thoughts… I am just trying to give feedback in the way of my personal opinion.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Thank you for a balanced, rational comment on a controversial book. If nothing else, the book has caused you to re-evaluate/re-examine professional cycling as a whole and the Lance Story within that context. I don't think an author could hope for much more. In the end, does anyone really think that Walsh is attempting to raise a torch-carrying mob to storm the Astana bus and lynch Armstrong with this book!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Yes, Good review. I also thought that Walsh started to get a little harsh toward the end of the book. You could see his frustration coming thru. LA Confidential was more information and less emotion. 

While it many not come across here I have less of issue with the doping then the cover up. Face it, from the early 90's to 2005 doping was close to mandatory. I am not so sure that any of use would have not made the same choices. 

What was not mandatory was the cover up. The absurd stories invented to pretend that there was not an issue. The media campaigns that tried to shift blame from the dopers to the testers. The attacks on anyone who told the truth and the request for the fans to "Believe in Miracles". This farce of pretending there is not an problem has debased our sport and turned it into a circus.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Yes, Good review. I also thought that Walsh started to get a little harsh toward the end of the book. You could see his frustration coming thru. LA Confidential was more information and less emotion.


Really, I didn't see Walsh being bitter at all at the end. On the contrary, he wrote of Pantani's eulogy and how the priest said that the videos of Pantani were on par with pornography. He also wrote of the Spanish climber who also died from a drug overdose. The Oscar Camazind positive is also in there and how he went back to being a mailman.



bigpinkt said:


> While it many not come across here I have less of issue with the doping then the cover up. Face it, from the early 90's to 2005 doping was close to mandatory. I am not so sure that any of use would have not made the same choices.
> 
> What was not mandatory was the cover up. The absurd stories invented to pretend that there was not an issue. The media campaigns that tried to shift blame from the dopers to the testers. The attacks on anyone who told the truth and the request for the fans to "Believe in Miracles". This farce of pretending there is not an problem has debased our sport and turned it into a circus.


I think that the Hamilton fiasco really ticked Walsh off. He was on Competitor radio saying something about how the volume of Tyler's doping was just outrageous according to OP records and that his denials were laughably absurd. I think he got to the point of being disgusted by how dishonest these guy were. 

Plus he's endured tons of personal attacks when it is obvious that these guys are more doped up than pro bodybuilders.. It's just ridiculous.


----------

