# Why would it be worse to lose Contador than Armstrong?



## Nick09 (Aug 1, 2009)

Don't attack me yet.... I'm no diehard Armstrong fan, but doesn't the cycling world, at least the American cycling world have more to lose if Armstong goes down hard than if Contador goes down? A lot of the posts are "I don't like Contador, but this will be a big loss for the cycling world." But 3/4 of the Armstrong posts, or the ones I seem to remember people posting are that he should go down..... and down hard

I know that Armstrong may not be a flawless superstar in the entire cycling world, but he is a pretty huge name in the American world of cycling, almost the only name to those who are not in the circle of knowledge.I don't think I have ever heard a little kid on a bike say, "look at me, I'm Contador, or Lemond". Instead its always, "look at me, I'm lance Armstrong."

I know that America is a very very very small part of the cycling world, so is it just that it's not a big deal if an American goes down, but it is if someone else from across the lake goes down?

Is it that people just don't want Armstrong in the cycling world anymore, or is is in such a deep hole, he minus as well go down anyways no matter what it does to cyclings name in America?

Again, please don't attack, I am very curious as to why this trend?And if it is in fact not a trend you can certainly let me know also  .


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

Shouldn't all the guilty be caught/charged/punished? Political boundaries shouldn't allow anyone a free pass.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Excellent question. Lots of LA hate here. Must be because he has a foundation that supports cancer stricken individuals and is, by some, considered a fraud. Not my words...

I asked a similar question in another thread and the above comment was made quite a bit. Oh yeh, some feel as though they actually know LA. They tell me from "first hand" knowledge that he is an arrogant jerk and a drug dealer who manipulates adult team riders as though they were small children who can't make decisions on their own...

BTW...I am NOT an LA fanboy. He should NOT get a free pass. Lets just spread the wealth of anti doping hate/disgust a bit more yeh??


----------



## Nick09 (Aug 1, 2009)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Shouldn't all the guilty be caught/charged/punished? Political boundaries shouldn't allow anyone a free pass.



Or course everyone should be caught and punished, but my question was why everyone wants to see LA go down but Contador going down would be bad for cycling... I don't think niether LA nor Contador should be given a free pass, but I also would not like to see either go down. Both would be bad for cyclings name I think....


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

LA's limelight years of cycling are over and Contador is in the middle of his. That's probably why you hear some saying it would be more of a loss "for the current cycling world" if Contador goes down rather than LA. That aside, LA has never tested positive for any banned substance. Yet plenty here somehow know that LA is a "big O'l doper." Those same people will deny that Contador dopes regardless of what happens. He got into some bad beef!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cuz he's from Spain?


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

spade2you said:


> Cuz he's from Spain?


Yea, that's another reason. Most got tired of the ******* from Texas doing so well in a predominately European sport.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I do think it will be worse if Armstrong loses face. His career is essentially over so we would not be losing him from the pro peleton as a premier rider. But Armstrong has had a better overall career (at least at this point in Contador's career), has a great comeback/cancer survivor story that truly helps many people, and his foundation does and/or can have a very positive impact. Contador is just a very talented rider who has excelled early in his career, and his career results may best Armstrong's some day, but he hasn't shown he's going to help others like Armstrong has done.

But if they are both cheaters, they are cheaters.


----------



## tommyrhodes (Aug 19, 2009)

I believe the argument is that we'll never know just how great conti could have been. We'd be robbed of the conti-shleck showdown that seems to be on the horizon for the next few years. Which is unfortunate, because I cannot find to much evidence that makes me believe AC was actually doping. But such is life.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

tommyrhodes said:


> I believe the argument is that we'll never know just how great conti could have been. We'd be robbed of the conti-shleck showdown that seems to be on the horizon for the next few years. Which is unfortunate, because I cannot find to much evidence that makes me believe AC was actually doping. But such is life.


Sure we know. He'd win a few more TdF's so long as he keeps eating that bad beef.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

tommyrhodes said:


> I believe the argument is that we'll never know just how great conti could have been. We'd be robbed of the conti-shleck showdown that seems to be on the horizon for the next few years. Which is unfortunate, because I cannot find to much evidence that makes me believe AC was actually doping. But such is life.


With a statement like that you are either ignorant or a paid member of Contador's defense team. Have fun reading his book...


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

tommyrhodes said:


> I believe the argument is that we'll never know just how great conti could have been. We'd be robbed of the conti-shleck showdown that seems to be on the horizon for the next few years. Which is unfortunate, because I cannot find to much evidence that makes me believe AC was actually doping. But such is life.


Puerto affairs files with a Liberty Seguros "AC" identified as a client. Chemicals associated with plastic bags used in blood transfusion detected in his blood. Failing a doping control test for Clenbuterol, a banned substance. All with a dropback of well-documented, systematic doping across peloton. 

How much evidence do you need to "believe"?


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Neither is worse. AC is the most recent case, that's all.

It shows that our sport is still a corrupt mess.It seems that almost every winner of a major tour in recent times has been a scumbag.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Personally, I think that it would be a huge blow to cycling if either of them went down. These two things make me sad.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

While US cycling has more to lose from LA being convicted of wrongdoing, cycling has more to lose overall from Contador's conviction.

Contador is a current champion and supposedly of the "New Generation" whereas Armstrong is firmly of the "Old Guard".

Additionally, LA has the "donation" to the UCI to explain. There is yet to be any such skeleton in Contador's cupboard.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> While US cycling has more to lose from LA being convicted of wrongdoing, cycling has more to lose overall from Contador's conviction.
> 
> Contador is a current champion and supposedly of the "New Generation" whereas Armstrong is firmly of the "Old Guard".
> 
> ...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> While US cycling has more to lose from LA being convicted of wrongdoing, cycling has more to lose overall from Contador's conviction.
> 
> Contador is a current champion and supposedly of the "New Generation" whereas Armstrong is firmly of the "Old Guard".
> 
> Additionally, LA has the "donation" to the UCI to explain. There is yet to be any such skeleton in Contador's cupboard.


Um, Puerto? Manolo Saiz?

Contador is far from "scandal free." He has the benefit of the Spanish authorities keeping him safe (see Valverde.)

Frankly, it's SO well known that most of the peloton is using something, I don't see it as ANY surprise to anyone in the sport. Hell, according to some news outlets, the riders in the peloton were not surprised at all, just surprised he didn't get pinched for something bigger.


----------



## red_lantern (Aug 8, 2010)

I think there's no question that in America LA going down would be (?will be) a bigger issue as only those that actually ride probably have even heard of AC (he could probably be in any of LA's various commercials and not be recognized).

In Europe, AC is clearly the "now" and LA is the past. I mean, even the French press was nicer to him this year which must mean they don't perceive him as a threat anymore...

To me, each new rider that gets caught just increases the likelihood that LA cheated in some way also. It becomes harder to believe that someone could dominate for so long if he was the only one not getting help. I still hope it's not true, but I wanted to believe Landis also.


----------



## red_lantern (Aug 8, 2010)

duplicate


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

red_lantern said:


> I think there's no question that in America LA going down would be (?will be) a bigger issue as only those that actually ride probably have even heard of AC (he could probably be in any of LA's various commercials and not be recognized).
> 
> In Europe, AC is clearly the "now" and LA is the past. I mean, even the French press was nicer to him this year which must mean they don't perceive him as a threat anymore...
> 
> To me, each new rider that gets caught just increases the likelihood that LA cheated in some way also. It becomes harder to believe that someone could dominate for so long if he was the only one not getting help. I still hope it's not true, but I wanted to believe Landis also.


If everybody cheats, and they do, it is not cheating, it is a normal way of doing business. If TDF was completely clean, clean LA would dominate just like doped LA dominated doped TDF.

Cheating is too strong a word anyway.. like music "piracy". They just tinkered with their biochemistry a little. So effing what?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

AC is worse for cycling because of the hope (unrealistic in my opinion) that doping is largely a thing of the past. I don't think there are too many people who follow cycling who aren't pretty sure already that Armstrong was doping just like every other top rider of his generation and probably 95+% of the nobodies.

I still think it just might be possible that a clean rider has won a big race over the last couple of years simply because the doping enforcement has now made the potential gains from doping much lower.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Um, Puerto? Manolo Saiz?
> 
> Contador is far from "scandal free." He has the benefit of the Spanish authorities keeping him safe (see Valverde.)


Contador also rode and won while riding for Johan Buyneel, that implicates doping as much as riding for Manolo if you ask me...

Back to topic, I too find the damage would be greater from Contador's case than Lance. Lance is gone again, he may be a big name for americans who don't follow cycling but he's now just history for cycling. And cancer patient... surivors wont get hit by cancer again if they see Lance cheated and I don't think the number of cancer cases and deaths will rise once the public knows the truth about him. In fact, Livestrong could have a new moto: Do like Lance: cheat cancer!

Contador is/was the new measure by which other Grand Tour riders are judged, what they aim for... Now it shows they must dope to meat* that goal... sadly, they are probably already doing it (as if Andy 'paying-thousands-of-Euros-to-a-gynecologist-for-training-plans was cleaner than Alberto).

* intentional crappy joke/typo


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Dan Gerous said:


> Contador also rode and won while riding for Johan Buyneel, that implicates doping as much as riding for Manolo if you ask me...
> 
> Back to topic, I too find the damage would be greater from Contador's case than Lance. Lance is gone again, he may be a big name for americans who don't follow cycling but he's now just history for cycling. And cancer patient... surivors wont get hit by cancer again if they see Lance cheated and I don't think the number of cancer cases and deaths will rise once the public knows the truth about him. In fact, Livestrong could have a new moto: Do like Lance: cheat cancer!
> 
> ...


First, good joke, I chuckled.

Second, Andy needed to get the sand out of his vagina, that's all.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Nick09 said:


> Don't attack me yet.... I'm no diehard Armstrong fan, but doesn't the cycling world, at least the American cycling world have more to lose if Armstong goes down hard than if Contador goes down? A lot of the posts are "I don't like Contador, but this will be a big loss for the cycling world." But 3/4 of the Armstrong posts, or the ones I seem to remember people posting are that he should go down..... and down hard
> 
> I know that Armstrong may not be a flawless superstar in the entire cycling world, but he is a pretty huge name in the American world of cycling, almost the only name to those who are not in the circle of knowledge.I don't think I have ever heard a little kid on a bike say, "look at me, I'm Contador, or Lemond". Instead its always, "look at me, I'm lance Armstrong."
> 
> ...


I think people will feel Contador will be a bigger loss, because among knowledgeable fans, it's a foregone conclusion that Armstrong's entire career, post cancer, was attributable to doping.

They suspected Contador, but like post Festina, and post 2005, then post 2006, then with the expulsions of Vino/Chicken, they believed cycling was cleanER.

They saw Contador with some weakness this year and thought things were more normal. So much for that.

For people outside of cycling, Armstrong was a creation of celebrity culture, they didn't know or care about the finer points of cycling. They just knew he won and was dating, whoever he was dating at the time.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Axe said:


> If everybody cheats, and they do, it is not cheating, it is a normal way of doing business. If TDF was completely clean, clean LA would dominate just like doped LA dominated doped TDF.


This is what is called speculation. There's a reason the competition takes place, and that is because no one knows what will happen prior to the event.



Axe said:


> Cheating is too strong a word anyway.. like music "piracy". They just tinkered with their biochemistry a little. So effing what?


The U.S. government, at the behest of President George W. Bush, has labeled the alleged behavior criminal amongst other things..

Doping is also a criminal offense in some European countries.

Lying about doping to the concerned authorities in the U.S. is also a crime.

The so what is that this behavior, if it is denied, may land a person in prison.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

LA retired as the most tested athlete in history. They had more chances to catch him than anyone else.

Time to move on and let him live his life.


----------



## Nick09 (Aug 1, 2009)

*Another point....*

I have heard people say that both Andy and Alberto are far better than Lance ever was in his prime. If Lance doped, and Andy and Alberto are far better in their primes than Lance was, is it safe to put two and two together???


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

biobanker said:


> LA retired as the most tested athlete in history. They had more chances to catch him than anyone else.
> 
> Time to move on and let him live his life.


The most tested athlete in history tag is pure propaganda advanced by the man himself.

They have caught him and the statute of limitations on his crimes hasn't expired. There is no statute of limitations on the truth. His TdF wins were sporting pornography.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

blackjack said:


> The most tested athlete in history tag is pure propaganda advanced by the man himself.
> 
> They have caught him and the statute of limitations on his crimes hasn't expired. There is no statute of limitations on the truth. His TdF wins were sporting pornography.


LOL. Who are "they" and how do you, of all people, know this? Mr. Propaganda.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Nick09 said:


> I have heard people say that both Andy and Alberto are far better than Lance ever was in his prime. If Lance doped, and Andy and Alberto are far better in their primes than Lance was, is it safe to put two and two together???


I have "heard people say" all sorts of things.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> LOL. Who are "they"


They are the Federal investigators who are much more formidible than the UCI.




ghost6 said:


> and how do you, of all people, know this? Mr. Propaganda.


Publicly available information. 


BTW, it is a fact that Armstrong is not the most tested athlete in history, not that being tested means much of anything anyway, because as we've seen from public reports, the testing probably detects doping less than 1% of the time it's actually taking place.


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

Lance Armstrong is a brand name. It is also a hero and a role model for many Americas and people around the world. He motivates me to ride. Contador does not motivate me to ride. 

In fact, not many people know who the hell Contador is and no one really cares. He has no charisma, no presence, no influence.

So yeah, Contador is forggetable. Armtrong had to beat Pantani, Ulrich, and a bunch other dopers. So let's say Armstrong doped. He beat everyone by his training regimen and obsession with cycling. Everyone else was doped to the gills and we all know that.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Contador had to slow down to still beat Armstrong.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Contador had to slow down to still beat Armstrong.



I would have loved to see these two race as rivals..both in their prime. That would have been epic..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> LOL. Who are "they" and how do you, of all people, know this? Mr. Propaganda.


It is rather easy to see that the "Most tested" claim is an invention. 

The USADA website http://usada.org/ Says that Armstrong is not even the most tested cyclist named Armstrong

Lance Armstrong 22
Floyd Landis 16
Chris Horner 31
George Hincapie 38
levi Leipheimer 40
Kirsten Armstrong 66

The UCI's list is also unimpressive. Any sprinter, like Chipo or Zabel was tested far more during the 7 year run

1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires.

2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires.

2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires.

2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires.

2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires.

2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires.

Mike Anderson, Armstrong's personal assistant/mechanic, was with him daily for 2 years. During that time there were no surprise, OOC, test performed. None. 

The "Most Tested" claim is an invention, it has no basis in fact.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Back on topic. 

The vast majority of cycling fans are based in Europe. There are few, if any, that are still under the illusion that Armstrong is clean. For Contador there may be slightly more who believe he is clean but it is still a minority. 

Most would just see it as business as usual in the sport.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zion rasta said:


> Lance Armstrong is a brand name. It is also a hero and a role model for many Americas and people around the world. He motivates me to ride. Contador does not motivate me to ride.
> 
> In fact, not many people know who the hell Contador is and no one really cares. He has no charisma, no presence, no influence.
> 
> So yeah, Contador is forggetable. Armtrong had to beat Pantani, Ulrich, and a bunch other dopers. So let's say Armstrong doped. He beat everyone by his training regimen and obsession with cycling. Everyone else was doped to the gills and we all know that.


I would agree that many Americans do not know Contador but Europeans sure do. 

Sure, everyone else was doping......but did they all give a $500,000 donation? Did they all receive advanced notice of "Surprise" Out of competition testing?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doesn't make any difference. Before they were caught they were doped and trained to their best fitness when LA crushed them. LA vs. AC in their primes would've been a non-event. AC would've lost by the same 7-15 minutes that everyone else did. Recall how AC won the 2007 TdF, he inherited it from a prime Michael Rassmussen who'd taken a couple minutes out of AC by then. The same Michael Rassmussen that got dropped for minutes routinely by LA.

LA getting convicted of a doping offense would be far more devistating in the US. This forum does not represent a cross section of the LA fan base. I'd bet the majority of people paying attention to him believe he was clean still.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

davidka said:


> Doesn't make any difference. Before they were caught they were doped and trained to their best fitness when LA crushed them. LA vs. AC in their primes would've been a non-event. AC would've lost by the same 7-15 minutes that everyone else did. Recall how AC won the 2007 TdF, he inherited it from a prime Michael Rassmussen who'd taken a couple minutes out of AC by then. The same Michael Rassmussen that got dropped for minutes routinely by LA.
> 
> *LA getting convicted of a doping offense would be far more devistating in the US*. This forum does not represent a cross section of the LA fan base. I'd bet the majority of people paying attention to him believe he was clean still.


Prepare for the devastation!:yikes: 

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.:Yawn: :lol: :ciappa:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> Doesn't make any difference. Before they were caught they were doped and trained to their best fitness when LA crushed them. LA vs. AC in their primes would've been a non-event. AC would've lost by the same 7-15 minutes that everyone else did. Recall how AC won the 2007 TdF, he inherited it from a prime Michael Rassmussen who'd taken a couple minutes out of AC by then. The same Michael Rassmussen that got dropped for minutes routinely by LA.
> 
> LA getting convicted of a doping offense would be far more devistating in the US. This forum does not represent a cross section of the LA fan base. I'd bet the majority of people paying attention to him believe he was clean still.


I agree, Armstrong would have spanked him. It is a bit hard to measure given the changes pre/post WADA but I still think Armstrong would have beat him. To be fair the Rassmussen of 2007 was a completely different Rass from 4 years prior. He was on a different level. 

Many Americans have figured out the reality of the sport, in fact most sports, and Armstrong. His popularity has taken a big hit as the reality of his doping is more widely known. 

Any conviction would be a long, drawn out, affair. By the time there was a conviction most would be well aware of the evidence and it would not be much of a shock. Hopefully most will also realize that "Hey, this bike thing is pretty fun, even if that Armstrong guy is a doper"


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> I would have loved to see these two race as rivals..both in their prime. That would have been epic..


Kinda would've been like Arnold Schwarzenneger vs. Sergio Oliva at the '72 Olympia!:thumbsup: 

Or Dorian Yates, Lee Haney, and Ronnie Coleman on the same stage. :cryin:

Or maybe Chief Jay Strongbow and Billy Whitewolf vs. the Executioners.

yeah!


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Many Americans have figured out the reality of the sport, in fact most sports, and Armstrong. His popularity has taken a big hit as the reality of his doping is more widely known.


I think this is the case with sports fans, but Lance isn't just a sports icon, he's also a cultural icon because of Livestrong.

The people that I know who put him on a pedestal for Livestrong don't want to believe he doped.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I think this is the case with sports fans, but Lance isn't just a sports icon, he's also a cultural icon because of Livestrong.
> 
> *The people that I know who put him on a pedestal for Livestrong don't want to believe he doped*.



All the more reason to make sure he's convicted for his crimes. It's never a good thing to believe in false idols.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I think this is the case with sports fans, but Lance isn't just a sports icon, he's also a cultural icon because of Livestrong.
> 
> The people that I know who put him on a pedestal for Livestrong don't want to believe he doped.


You are correct, there will certainly be a large group who will never face the truth. 

What sunrises me is though is the increasingly negative view by the general public. Whenever the gossip rags have another story about lance and the Olsen twin, bimbo of the day, dumping Crow etc. the comments are overwhelmingly negative......worse then this place. 

Armstrong popularity has fallen fast. Zeta Interactive, a marketing firm that tracks looks online to see how people are being viewed, found Armstrong has fallen far. Zeta measured Armstrong at 92 percent popularity in 2008, and he was at 86 percent in July before the start of his final Tour de France. That number dropped to 51 percent in August when the federal investigation ramped up and has bumped only slightly to 55 percent in recent weeks.


> "He's flirting with 50-50," said Zeta Interactive CEO Al DiGuido. "For someone trying to build themself as a brand, that's not a good place to be."


After a long trial with negative testimony of multiple former teammates, friends and staff his reputation will continue to take a big hit.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

blackjack said:


> They are the Federal investigators who are much more formidible than the UCI.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You remind me of certain religious folk who "know" that they possess unreachable knowledge. Keep it up, I'm eating popcorn.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is rather easy to see that the "Most tested" claim is an invention.
> 
> The USADA website http://usada.org/ Says that Armstrong is not even the most tested cyclist named Armstrong
> 
> ...


Of course, the "Most Tested" claim is an invention. You're missing the point.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> You remind me of certain religious folk who "know" that they possess unreachable knowledge. Keep it up, I'm eating popcorn.



You don't read much evidently. You can find just about everything I posted on the internet, or in a book.

You ever see Jules in Pulp Fiction? He was quitting the business. Vincent was going to tell Marcellus Wallace why, and predicted Marcellus would laugh his a$$ off.

Jules told Vincent to go ahead, he didn't care what Marcellus did.

Glad I could entertain you though. Laughter is usually good.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Has anyone figured out what federal crimes would still be viable within the statute of limitations may be a basis for the federal grand jury investigation? For most federal felony offenses, but not all, the statute is 5 years: meaning if there were an indictment today you need to show an act that is part of the commission of the offense on or after October 6, 2005, and counting. The exceptions are things like RICO (which is really a bazooka of a charge, and requires allegations that the defendant converted an "enterprise" (maybe the US Postal or Discovery Team itself) into a criminal enterprise) or bank fraud (10 years) or conspiracy (5 years, but you get to include continuing acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, which sometimes occur long after the central object is accomplished). Just seems strange to me that the grand jury is investigating stuff that is really very old, and for which there's not likely a lot of hard evidence available other than testimony of witnesses. Anyway, just wondering what people have surmised about the details of the fed investigation.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Won't the question be moot if/when they both go down?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Brad the Bold said:


> Won't the question be moot if/when they both go down?


Well, that's surely true: in the event there is an indictment, it will tell us what the grand jury charged. But I'm impatient and want to know (now!  ) what, if any, charges people who have been following the developments in the press actually believe are being investigated, and what would be likely stick in light of the statute of limitations and evidentiary concerns. RICO is a stretch, everything else is expired because the conduct is more than 5 years old, leaving us with only perjury ... but perjury cases are hard, too, when it is just conflicting witness statements, and I imagine a case where the perjury occurs in a grand jury investigation that was investigating charges that were already expired at the time of the investigation isn't going to have a lot of jury appeal either.

Edit: Well, I assume the conduct is more than 5 years old, but maybe tidbits have been published identifying further acts by the sujbects of the investigation within 5 years. I'd be interested in hearing about that, too.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

blackjack said:


> You don't read much evidently. You can find just about everything I posted on the internet, or in a book.
> 
> Glad I could entertain you though. Laughter is usually good.


Golly gee, if it's posted on the internet or printed in a book, it must be true! Charmingly gullible. This popcorn is tasty.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Golly gee, if it's posted on the internet or printed in a book, it must be true! Charmingly gullible. This popcorn is tasty.



Why would you say that? It's up to your wonderful powers of discernment.

I see you're hiding and not venturing any opinions on anything. Good strategy.:smilewinkgrin: :wink: :wink:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> LA's limelight years of cycling are over and Contador is in the middle of his. That's probably why you hear some saying it would be more of a loss "for the current cycling world" if Contador goes down rather than LA. *That aside, LA has never tested positive for any banned substance. Yet plenty here somehow know that LA is a "big O'l doper."* Those same people will deny that Contador dopes regardless of what happens. He got into some bad beef!


Forget what I said about any possible powers of discernment.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

blackjack said:


> Forget what I said about any possible powers of discernment.


Sure thing, Captain! You're the Almighty perceiver of Truth who transforms opinion into fact. Come here, come all; cast your eyes upon Blackjack, the one, True arbiter of Truth. Hail! Hail! Blackjack tells tales with such chutzpah that you'll "know that you know that you know" that the one-and-only Blackjack tells no tale at all. Blackjack speaks the TRUTH because Blackjack is Truth and Truth is Blackjack! :idea:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Sure thing, Captain! You're the Almighty perceiver of Truth who transforms opinion into fact. Come here, come all; cast your eyes upon Blackjack, the one, True arbiter of Truth. Hail! Hail! Blackjack tells tales with such chutzpah that you'll "know that you know that you know" that the one-and-only Blackjack tells no tale at all. Blackjack speaks the TRUTH because Blackjack is Truth and Truth is Blackjack! :idea:


Easy. I'm only reporting on the Federal Investigation of the most tested athlete of all time.


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

blackjack said:


> Easy. I'm only reporting on the Federal Investigation of the most tested athlete of all time.


blackjack has been swallowed by the vacuum of his own personality...and is high on the fumes.

doper.


----------



## CraigFavata9 (Mar 27, 2008)

The cycling world has nothing to lose and everything to gain from removing ALL cheating from the sport, regardless of how big the names involved are. Doping makes the sport a laughing stock and threatens sponsorship opportunities, so the "losses" of both Armstrong or Contador are equally great for the sport in the long run, and it's certainly not an LA v AC situation. The problem of doping clearly isn't being fully acknowledged when we still see people saying that it could possibly be a bad thing to lose the big stars, as they are in this thread (amongst other places - hello Pat McQuaid), regardless of whether they're fakes or not.

The idea that Armstrong's charity work or Contador's popularity in Europe should have any bearing on whether they should be brought down is ridiculously short-sighted. Okay, so Armstrong's image might be damaged if caught, but his activities outside of cycling are _his_ responsibility, and if their success depends on his honesty as a man then he should damn well have been an honest man. Likewise, Contador's fans in Europe will be pissed at the fraudulent nature of his wins, but if he wanted to build a loyal fan-base with success, he had to win legitimately to be sure of the lasting legacy. Didn't do those things? Too bad.

Cycling doesn't live or die by one or two personalities, but if enough fans get disillusioned with seeing cheats win decade after decade, the sport will be in trouble, so it should be pretty clear where the priority is. As we find cheaters, they ALL need to be decisively dealt with, because the more cycling is seen to be a sport where cheating is tolerated, the more people will give up on the sport forever.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

ghost6 said:


> Sure thing, Captain! You're the Almighty perceiver of Truth who transforms opinion into fact. Come here, come all; cast your eyes upon Blackjack, the one, True arbiter of Truth. Hail! Hail! Blackjack tells tales with such chutzpah that you'll "know that you know that you know" that the one-and-only Blackjack tells no tale at all. Blackjack speaks the TRUTH because Blackjack is Truth and Truth is Blackjack! :idea:


_
This message is hidden because blackjack is on your ignore list. _

That's what I see.


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

Axe said:


> _
> This message is hidden because blackjack is on your ignore list. _
> 
> That's what I see.



Lucky you!
I'll translate for you,,,basically it said "blackjack is the Glenn Beck of the doping forum"
Just not in so many words...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

CraigFavata9 said:


> The cycling world has nothing to lose and everything to gain from removing ALL cheating from the sport, regardless of how big the names involved are. Doping makes the sport a laughing stock and threatens sponsorship opportunities, so the "losses" of both Armstrong or Contador are equally great for the sport in the long run, and it's certainly not an LA v AC situation. The problem of doping clearly isn't being fully acknowledged when we still see people saying that it could possibly be a bad thing to lose the big stars, as they are in this thread (amongst other places - hello Pat McQuaid), regardless of whether they're fakes or not.
> 
> The idea that Armstrong's charity work or Contador's popularity in Europe should have any bearing on whether they should be brought down is ridiculously short-sighted. Okay, so Armstrong's image might be damaged if caught, but his activities outside of cycling are _his_ responsibility, and if their success depends on his honesty as a man then he should damn well have been an honest man. Likewise, Contador's fans in Europe will be pissed at the fraudulent nature of his wins, but if he wanted to build a loyal fan-base with success, he had to win legitimately to be sure of the lasting legacy. Didn't do those things? Too bad.
> 
> Cycling doesn't live or die by one or two personalities, but if enough fans get disillusioned with seeing cheats win decade after decade, the sport will be in trouble, so it should be pretty clear where the priority is. As we find cheaters, they ALL need to be decisively dealt with, because the more cycling is seen to be a sport where cheating is tolerated, the more people will give up on the sport forever.


It's nice to know that there are people in the world who get it. Thanks.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Well, that's surely true: in the event there is an indictment, it will tell us what the grand jury charged. But I'm impatient and want to know (now!  ) what, if any, charges people who have been following the developments in the press actually believe are being investigated, and what would be likely stick in light of the statute of limitations and evidentiary concerns. RICO is a stretch, everything else is expired because the conduct is more than 5 years old, leaving us with only perjury ... but perjury cases are hard, too, when it is just conflicting witness statements, and I imagine a case where the perjury occurs in a grand jury investigation that was investigating charges that were already expired at the time of the investigation isn't going to have a lot of jury appeal either.
> 
> Edit: Well, I assume the conduct is more than 5 years old, but maybe tidbits have been published identifying further acts by the sujbects of the investigation within 5 years. I'd be interested in hearing about that, too.



Maybe RICO isn't a stretch if Armstrong is using his "good" name to enrich himself thru his charities. You don't think that's beyond him?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Ah, hadn't thought of that -- LiveStrong as the criminal enterprise if RICO, or even as overt acts within the statute on other 5-year claims, too. OK, that makes more sense now, assuming the facts are there to back it up. Thx.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

CraigFavata9 said:


> The idea that Armstrong's charity work or Contador's popularity in Europe should have any bearing on whether they should be brought down is ridiculously short-sighted. Okay, so Armstrong's image might be damaged if caught, but his activities outside of cycling are _his_ responsibility, and if their success depends on his honesty as a man then he should damn well have been an honest man. Likewise, Contador's fans in Europe will be pissed at the fraudulent nature of his wins, but if he wanted to build a loyal fan-base with success, he had to win legitimately to be sure of the lasting legacy. Didn't do those things? Too bad.


Very well stated. I was looking for a way to say this, but you just nailed it. Thanks.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

worst_shot_ever said:


> Ah, hadn't thought of that -- LiveStrong as the criminal enterprise if RICO, or even as overt acts within the statute on other 5-year claims, too. OK, that makes more sense now, assuming the facts are there to back it up. Thx.


I can't remember where I read it but I was under the impression that RICO offences have no statute of limitations. If so it opens LA up to much more risk if the Feds find any corroborating evidence for Landis's claims.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

You're pretty much right -- I think RICO's SoL is 20 years. That's part of why RICO indictments get the extra scrutiny by DOJ before the local USAOs are permitted to bring them. So really, it can be the US Postal or Discovery teams that are the enterprise under a RICO theory (i.e., no need to use LiveStrong), -- or, if they want to avoid RICO (which is a tough case), they can try to come up with evidence showing that the earlier acts concering the Tours were somehow furthered (after Lance retired in 2005) by continuing illegality involving, perhaps, things that happened with the charitable foundation and use that to charge a conspiracy theory to stretch out the limitations period, instead. I also think that is tough, but maybe the evidence is there. THis is all rank speculation anyway, and probably interesting only to me.,


----------



## cruso414 (Feb 20, 2004)

with nothing but hearsay and speculation.......it's just that. Contador on the other hand is screwed and it couldn't happen to a better douchebag.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

cruso414 said:


> *with nothing but hearsay and speculation*.......it's just that. Contador on the other hand is screwed and it couldn't happen to a better douchebag.


This federal grand jury is taking quite a long time.

There are evidently quite are large number of witnesses to nothing...

Contador OTOH should be subjected to ridicule, but the other guy, who has lied in just about every one of his utterances is OK?

Every time Armstrong opens his mouth, it's as likely as not that, a lie comes out.

Swell guy!

:frown2: :frown2: :nonod: :nonod:


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

cruso414 said:


> it couldn't happen to a better douchebag.


And this amazing piece of insight is based on what?


----------



## cruso414 (Feb 20, 2004)

godot said:


> And this amazing piece of insight is based on what?


the fact that contador is a douchebag.:aureola:


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

cruso414 said:


> the fact that contador is a douchebag.:aureola:


wow, thanks, you're the best


----------



## cruso414 (Feb 20, 2004)

godot said:


> wow, thanks, you're the best


your welcome.

of course that is just my opinion.

you are better.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

cruso414 said:


> your welcome.
> 
> of course that is just my opinion.
> 
> you are better.


And your opinion is that Armstrong is not a douchebag?

As a matter of FACT, Armstrong far outweighs Contador in the category of douchebaggery.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackjack said:


> This federal grand jury is taking quite a long time.
> 
> There are evidently quite are large number of witnesses to nothing...
> 
> ...


Sick of your holier than thou attitude.

Why is it your place to either judge or give a crap about his morality? You're not his priest, parent or child, so you have no grounds.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Sick of your holier than thou attitude.


I'm sorry no one has told you that Santa is not real.




robdamanii said:


> Why is it your place to either judge or give a crap about his morality? You're not his priest, parent or child,.


It's my place because I purchase stuff in the cycling marketplace and I'm tired, and have been for a long time, of what Armstrong is selling.

He's selling what a great guy he is, champion, husband, father, and it's all lies.

Have you heard the McIlvaine tapes? She got it right. Armstrong is so horrendous he thinks he can sell "hope." McIlvaine properly called it disgusting.



robdamanii said:


> so you have no grounds.


I have no grounds? No legal standing? Are you for real? You're his defender?

Armstrong has grounds to perpetrate his fraud on an unsuspecting public?

Honestly, at this point, his defenders and apologists are worse than he is.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackjack said:


> I'm sorry no one has told you that Santa is not real.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you don't like what he's selling, don't buy it. That STILL doesn't give you license to morally judge anyone. And if you bother to read before posting a knee-jerk reaction, I never intimated that you had no legal right to complain. I'm saying you have no MORAL right to complain, since you're not invested in him in any way (and don't give me the "he's defrauding innocent people" because you're NOT the defender of the innocent in any matter of means.) Really, who are YOU to claim to defend the "unsuspecting public?" Are you delusional in thinking you're some caped crusader, fighting for the greater good of all? Strange, sounds a lot like the basis of the argument every dictator lays upon the "unsuspecting public."

To put it bluntly, you're only pissed off because he doesn't fall into your small percentage of "perfect people" that you've somehow created in your twisted sense of morality.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> If you don't like what he's selling, don't buy it. That STILL doesn't give you license to morally judge anyone. And if you bother to read before posting a knee-jerk reaction, I never intimated that you had no legal right to complain. I'm saying you have no MORAL right to complain, since you're not invested in him in any way (and don't give me the "he's defrauding innocent people" because you're NOT the defender of the innocent in any matter of means.) Really, who are YOU to claim to defend the "unsuspecting public?" Are you delusional in thinking you're some caped crusader, fighting for the greater good of all? Strange, sounds a lot like the basis of the argument every dictator lays upon the "unsuspecting public."
> 
> To put it bluntly, you're only pissed off because he doesn't fall into your small percentage of "perfect people" that you've somehow created in your twisted sense of morality.


What a performance!

Armstrong is a wonderful person, eh? 

Odd how I don't see you rushing to the defense of Ricco, Floyd or Contador who's just been morally judged to be douchebag. NO outrage over those moral judgements.

YOUR judgement of me is also completely unerring.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackjack said:


> What a performance!
> 
> Armstrong is a wonderful person, eh?
> 
> ...


-Floyd is an ass. He should have taken his licks when he was busted instead of dragging out his "defense" for so long. Busted, evidence is there, should have taken his lumps and returned in 2 (which he would likely have done had he not made a spectacle of himself.)

-Ricco took his punishment and is entitled to return to racing. His morals are none of my concern.

-Contador will be in the same boat as Floyd if he keeps going. He's busted, he should take his lumps and return in 2.

As I stated earlier, I don't give a crap about what they do, but when they're busted for it, I expect them to pay for it.

The difference between you and I is this: I'm not judging their morals. I frankly don't care if they cheat on their wives, their taxes, OR in a race. If they're entertaining to watch, good enough for me. This is entertainment, and THAT is why I watch them. I'm not invested in pro cycling to the point of really giving a crap that all the racers are "good guys" or not. 

If you're that invested, maybe you DO need time away from the sport so you can re-center your perspective as to what this is: entertainment.

And again, I'll point out, since you're illiterate: I never said LA was a wonderful person. I said you have no place to judge his morality. But then again, as you've said, you're a religious zealot, so you're always right, allowed to judge anyone, and immune to judgement yourself. No wonder you're incapable of rational thought or discussion.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> -Floyd is an ass. He should have taken his licks when he was busted instead of dragging out his "defense" for so long. Busted, evidence is there, should have taken his lumps and returned in 2 (which he would likely have done had he not made a spectacle of himself.)
> 
> -Ricco took his punishment and is entitled to return to racing. His morals are none of my concern.
> 
> ...





robdamanii said:


> Favre has always been a doosh and this just confirms it.


What's your beef with Favre?

Hey man? You said I'm illiterate. You know what hypocrite means?:thumbsup: 

You're a roiling ball of contradictions dude!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackjack said:


> What's your beef with Favre?
> 
> Hey man? You said I'm illiterate. You know what hypocrite means?:thumbsup:
> 
> You're a roiling ball of contradictions dude!


Again, since you can't comprehend:
I don't care what he does, but when he's busted for it, own up to it and take your punishment. Very simple.

You're grasping at straws. Badly. Sorry, but your zealot morality doesn't apply here.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Again, since you can't comprehend:
> I don't care what he does, but when he's busted for it, own up to it and take your punishment. Very simple.
> 
> You're grasping at straws. Badly. Sorry, but your zealot morality doesn't apply here.


And your standard, again, is THE standard. Because you see it's this way, that's THE way.

You're very self involved.:idea:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackjack said:


> And your standard, again, is THE standard. Because you see it's this way, that's THE way.
> 
> You're very self involved.:idea:


Yeah, who else does this sound like? Must be like looking in a mirror, right?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Yeah, who else does this sound like? Must be like looking in a mirror, right?


Funny, it seems my standards are philosophically aligned with the United States Government.

You standards are aligned philosophically with those of lostchild...lastchild. Congratulations!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

blackjack said:


> Funny, it seems my standards are philosophically aligned with the United States Government.
> 
> You standards are aligned philosophically with those of lostchild...lastchild. Congratulations!


Both based upon Christian rhetoric. Gee I wonder why the align?

And agreeing with the government doesn't make you right either.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Both based upon Christian rhetoric. Gee I wonder why the align?.


They don't teach civics anymore?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

1st Amendment......




robdamanii said:


> And agreeing with the government doesn't make you right either.


So Armstrong is guilty but the government is wrong to pursue him? GWB said we should not tolerate steroid/ped abuse in sports, and on that, I agree with him.

You're very confused.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Both based upon Christian rhetoric. Gee I wonder why the align?
> 
> And agreeing with the government doesn't make you right either.


Why waste time arguing with blackjack? He is obviously a tool and a troll - just ignore him like everyone else. Personally, I think he is just another "The Rydster" clone. :mad2:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

wipeout said:


> Why waste time arguing with blackjack? He is obviously a tool and a troll - just ignore him like everyone else. Personally, I think he is just another "The Rydster" clone. :mad2:





wipeout said:


> He was a great racer on his day, now he is a rabid dog chasing Lance Armstrong.. I wish he would just shut the eff up.


I'm a tool? You're just PO'd because you're an Armstrong fanboy and you want your hero to stay out of prison.

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php/photo/58620/cat/500/ppuser/247546

You still wearing that liestrong band?


----------

