# LA article in SI.com or How To Piss Off an Entire Country



## SamDC (Mar 22, 2002)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/12/15/bc.cyc.armstrong.trial.ap/index.html?cnn=yes


My favorite line was:

"...He was whining, like some Italians do ... 'Yah, yah, yah' ... all these things, and I'm like, 'Shut up and ride your bike. C'mon.'"


Hehehehehe...


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

*Bad Journalism*

I read this quote and laugh a little over SI missing the fact the L'Equipe did more than accuse him...lots of people have accused him but nobody has ever claimed they had positive test on Armstrong which is what should have been said. 

"Armstrong also made headlines in August when French sports daily L'Equipe claimed that he used the banned performance enhancer EPO during his first Tour win in 1999."


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

What a weenie. Taking him to court,what a joke.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

kpcw said:


> What a joke, too soon for April fools. I read the article and cannot understand why LA is in court. Ridiculous.


I guess when someone testifies against your dope doctor, it's best to keep quite instead of defaming him in the press. What did Mr. Armstrong possibly think he was going to gain by calling Simeoni a liar when anyone who follows the sport knows exactly how Dr. Ferrari makes his living?

Mr. Armstrong's account of Simeoni's break does not strike me as very accurate. The word "lie" comes to mind--especially in light of the fact that at the Tour de Georgia Armstrong warned Mario Cipollini not to bring Simeoni to the TdF.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Mr. Armstrong's account of Simeoni's break does not strike me as very accurate. The word "lie" comes to mind--especially in light of the fact that at the Tour de Georgia Armstrong warned Mario Cipollini not to bring Simeoni to the TdF.


Reading Lance's Velonews interview, you get the impression that he lives in his own world, where he makes the rules and has his own version of reality. I could be wrong, and it could be a vast journalistic conspiracy to make him look bad, but I don't think so.

Silas


----------



## Koop (Oct 23, 2005)

SamDC said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/12/15/bc.cyc.armstrong.trial.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
> 
> 
> My favorite line was:
> ...


Poorly researched, poorly written. As for Armstrong living in his own world, I think there's some truth to that. He lives in a world of celebrity and demand that most of us will never know or understand.

Dr. Michele Ferrari along with Dr. Cecchini are always depicted as notorious and evil. Cecchini also works with Ullrich, Basso and many others. Together they devised many training methods and measurements. Lance has the financial resources to have exclusive training advice (among TdF contenders) from Ferrari. 

If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend reading Coyle's book "Lance Armstrong's War". It is well researched and fairly balanced.


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

*I don't get it?*

Do the Italians really wear dresses like the French? I could not imagine anyone involved in american sports taking someone to court because of a non violent act during the sporting event.

Michael Jordan talked trash and went out of his way to embarrass his opponents but I don't recall him being sued over it.

Simeoni clearly has no pride.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Lifelover said:


> Are the Italians really wear dresses like the French? I could not imagine anyone involved in american sports taking someone to court because of a non violent act during the sporting event.
> 
> Michael Jordan talked trash and went out of his way to embarrass his opponents but I don't recall him being sued over it.
> 
> Simeoni clearly has no pride.


I don't get it: are all Americans so stupid as to believe 1, 2, or 100 people are the measure of an entire nation? Apparently. If Italians and the French are wearing dresses, then Americans are bumbling about with empty cranial vaults.

As to L'Equipe and their "proof" or accusations. There is nothing, yet, to suggest any unbiased reporting. There is/was a lot of suspicious decisions made. Whether or not LA doped, L'Equipe's machinations prove nothing.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

The fact of the matter is this- Simeoni had to leave a breakaway because Lance kept on his wheel. This cost Simeoni the chance at prize money, and served to show him that he wouldn't get a chance to be in the money for the entire Tour. I don't know if it was Armstrong's intention to bully Simeoni because of his testifying or not, but it certainly gives that appearance. My problem with it is that the trial is in Italy. I don't see what jurisdiction Italy has over events that took place in France.


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

chipped teeth said:


> The fact of the matter is this- Simeoni had to leave a breakaway because Lance kept on his wheel. This cost Simeoni the chance at prize money, and served to show him that he wouldn't get a chance to be in the money for the entire Tour. I don't know if it was Armstrong's intention to bully Simeoni because of his testifying or not, but it certainly gives that appearance.


Does it even matter why Lance decided to "bully" him? It's a professioanl sporting event. If one athelete is so superior as to be able to "Bully" another, even to the point of costing him money" than tough luck.

I just don't see how any actions that LA took during a race (again non violent and not breaking any event rules) should even be discussed in any court.

If Jan were to try to get involved in a break away LA would stay on his wheel as well. Maybe for different reasons but it would be thesame outcome.

If pro cycling is ever percieved in such a way that what Simeoni is doing is OK than it will mark the end of the sport.

Simeoni and ANYONE who agrees with what he is doing is a whining A$$, cry baby that needs a beat down.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

Lifelover said:


> Does it even matter why Lance decided to "bully" him? It's a professioanl sporting event. If one athelete is so superior as to be able to "Bully" another, even to the point of costing him money" than tough luck.
> 
> I just don't see how any actions that LA took during a race (again non violent and not breaking any event rules) should even be discussed in any court.
> 
> ...


I don't think that this is a civil suit brought by Simeoni, it is an allegation of retaliation by the government of Italy. I don't know if it was illegal according to the laws in Italy, but there is no questioning that Lance did follow Simeoni's wheel to keep him from a chance to place well in a stage. Not sporting to say the least. 

But I do find your "whining A$$" argument very compelling.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

*it's a race*

the idea that the guy leading the race can't ride somebody down because it will be percieved as bullying is perposperous. it's a race, everything is fair, even imtimadation/bullying, if it's armstrong or eddy merckx it doesn't matter. Armstrong can chase down anyone he wants, if he feels like expending the energy and leaves himself open from attacks from his true rivals. Simeoni got alot more attention from this than if he had won the stage. Armstrong did nothing wrong, Simeoni should have rode harder.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

alienator said:


> As to L'Equipe and their "proof" or accusations. There is nothing, yet, to suggest any unbiased reporting. There is/was a lot of suspicious decisions made. Whether or not LA doped, L'Equipe's machinations prove nothing.


There is a new one. Is not the rule in America supposed to be "innocent unless proven guilty?" Instead your rule is that since there is no evidence that L'Equipe is unbiased, you must assume that they are biased. How is that? 

The fact is that L'Equipe connected positive EPO samples to Mr. Armstrong and the only thing that has come out to "disprove" it is a lot of anti-French ethnic hatred.

Mr. Armstrong chased Simeoni down because he dared to break the peloton's rule of omerta and testified against the biggest dope doctor in the sport. Armstrong then retaliated against Simeoni. Whether this falls under intimidating a witness or some kind of whistle blower protection law, I do not know. But to try to portray the event as something that occurred in the normal course of sporting competition is a lie. Mr. Armstrong told numerous people he and his team would punish Simeoni, and Armstrong's "zip the lips" gesture told the world exactly what his intentions were, no matter what story about the incident he tells now.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

cmg said:


> the idea that the guy leading the race can't ride somebody down because it will be percieved as bullying is perposperous. it's a race, everything is fair, even imtimadation/bullying, if it's armstrong or eddy merckx it doesn't matter. Armstrong can chase down anyone he wants, if he feels like expending the energy and leaves himself open from attacks from his true rivals. Simeoni got alot more attention from this than if he had won the stage. Armstrong did nothing wrong, Simeoni should have rode harder.


Rode harder than what? He should have attacked the breakaway and dropped Armstrong? That's laughable. Like I said, I don't know if what happened was illegal, all I know is that the episode had nothing to do with the Tour, and everything to do with bad blood between Simeoni and Armstrong. Armstrong let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that Simeoni wouldn't have a chance at a stage win in the Tour because of his testimony in Italy. This effects Simeoni's livelihood, and arguably, intimidates anyone else who might testify against an associate of Armstrong in a doping trial.

Again, I don't know if it was illegal, but it isn't as simple as some whiny athlete bringing suit againt Armstrong. FWIW I like Armstrong, I think he has a great story and has been great for cycling. I have no illusions about his being soft and cuddly though.


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> There is a new one. Is not the rule in America supposed to be "innocent unless proven guilty?" Instead your rule is that since there is no evidence that L'Equipe is unbiased, you must assume that they are biased. How is that?
> 
> The fact is that L'Equipe connected positive EPO samples to Mr. Armstrong and the only thing that has come out to "disprove" it is a lot of anti-French ethnic hatred.
> 
> Mr. Armstrong chased Simeoni down because he dared to break the peloton's rule of omerta and testified against the biggest dope doctor in the sport. Armstrong then retaliated against Simeoni. Whether this falls under intimidating a witness or some kind of whistle blower protection law, I do not know. But to try to portray the event as something that occurred in the normal course of sporting competition is a lie. Mr. Armstrong told numerous people he and his team would punish Simeoni, and Armstrong's "zip the lips" gesture told the world exactly what his intentions were, no matter what story about the incident he tells now.


Wow. This post does an excellent job of contradicting itself.

Yes. The rule is indeed "innocent until proven guilty", and it is Lance Armstrong that is being accused, not L'Equipe. This is completely consistent with LA being innocent until proven guilty.

So, Lance has "dared to break the peloton's rule of omerta". Since when do people go to jail for breaking this? Wow, I guess I should really watch my back when I'm participating in a tea ceremony too.

Intimidating a witness by doing something that happens all the time in a bike race? Get real. This and a "zip the lips" gesture are grounds to send someone to jail? You've got to be kidding. This doesn't even rise to the bar of circumstantial evidence of a crime.

This whole silly trial should be dropped. It's a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Mr. Armstrong told numerous people he and his team would punish Simeoni, and Armstrong's "zip the lips" gesture told the world exactly what his intentions were, no matter what story about the incident he tells now.


The original investigation in Italy was over intimidating a witness which is a bit different than just throwing your weight around or shooting your mouth off.

Armstrong definitely is cut out for politics because just like all the politicians he not only reinvents his personal history to make himself look better, he actually believes the adulterated version of the truth. His relationship with Fabio Casartelli is an interesting example since it has little influence on his marketability (where he clearly lies the majority of the time) or image. The day after the accident he was interviewed on TV and said he barely knew the guy, that they rarely rode the same races and didn't hang out together but from what he saw he seemed like a great guy. To hear him talk recently you would think they were the closest personal friends. From that it seems like he is reinventing to past to make himself more appealing to himself as much as to mold public opinion.

While none of it could fly in court or to take his victory away L'Equipe did about as good a job of nailing him as possible. The pattern of positives was consistent with what I can infer to be the leading edge doping practices of the time (courtesy of Ferrari), basically a crude form of micro dosing. His story is truly miraculous but that doesn't make him a saint, and the same guy that took every possible measure to avoid dying from cancer could not unreasonably be assumed to do the same to avoid the death of losing (his analogy). Especially when competing against a doped peloton and with first hand knowledge of the safety and efficacy of EPO from being on it during chemo.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I'm not gonna takes sides other than*

if you check Simeoni's H-Crit records he had lower H Crit during his tenure with Ferrari than without. If memory serves me right he may have even been busted to doping prior to using Ferrari. Then during hsi work with Ferrari his H Crit drops and post ferrari it goes up a couple points. Now this goes counter to any contention that Ferrari was the one doping him. The suit against LA was when LA was interviewed about Simeoni's allegations he basically said "Ya can't trust that guy" as he'd had multiple and contradicting takes on record and this notable H-Crit past.


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> if you check Simeoni's H-Crit records he had lower H Crit during his tenure with Ferrari than without. If memory serves me right he may have even been busted to doping prior to using Ferrari. Then during hsi work with Ferrari his H Crit drops and post ferrari it goes up a couple points. Now this goes counter to any contention that Ferrari was the one doping him. The suit against LA was when LA was interviewed about Simeoni's allegations he basically said "Ya can't trust that guy" as he'd had multiple and contradicting takes on record and this notable H-Crit past.



I would suggest that this could also be evidence that Ferrari is really good at what he does. Why would there be a fluctiation in Simeoni's HC from when he worked with Ferrari and when he didn't? Are you suggesting that he only dopes when he's not working with Ferrari? Come on...

As far as saying that the case againt Armstrong is completely without merit, I'm not sure this is true. Armstrong made it clear that Simeoni would not be allowed to win, due not to racing strategy, but because of his testimony. What if some guy high up in your company said "If you tell anyone about me shredding that document, I'll see to it you never get another promotion." 

Not a perfect analogy, but Simeoni keeps his job based on his performance. If it is made known that he will be stopped from performing, he's got problems.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmm*



chipped teeth said:


> I don't think that this is a civil suit brought by Simeoni, it is an allegation of retaliation by the government of Italy. I don't know if it was illegal according to the laws in Italy, but there is no questioning that Lance did follow Simeoni's wheel to keep him from a chance to place well in a stage. Not sporting to say the least.
> 
> But I do find your "whining A$$" argument very compelling.


We have Olympic swimmers who spit in other swim lanes and deckare on TV I could swim that fast IF I WERE A MAN.

Comments like that kind make me think: Big deal. Was it mature? No. Would one of do the same thing? MAYBE. In fact, I amcertain it would weigh on my mind if I were in that position. Like it or not, real people ride the bike. These are not models of human excellence here.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

ttug said:


> We have Olympic swimmers who spit in other swim lanes and deckare on TV I could swim that fast IF I WERE A MAN.
> 
> Comments like that kind make me think: Big deal. Was it mature? No. Would one of do the same thing? MAYBE. In fact, I amcertain it would weigh on my mind if I were in that position. Like it or not, real people ride the bike. These are not models of human excellence here.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, or how it pertains to this thread.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*one gear lower*



chipped teeth said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, or how it pertains to this thread.


The behavior desribed in the interview is IMO, called trash talk.

It is called trash talk. Simeoni is whining. Lance is whining and the real deal is, its trash talk. It is part and parcel of the sport. Imagine all of the lawsuits that will happen as a result of wow he made me lose that day. The lines to the court would be miles long.

He could have won that stage. His Dad could beat up his Mom. etc etc etc etc


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

ttug said:


> The behavior desribed in the interview is IMO, called trash talk.
> 
> It is called trash talk. Simeoni is whining. Lance is whining and the real deal is, its trash talk. It is part and parcel of the sport. Imagine all of the lawsuits that will happen as a result of wow he made me lose that day. The lines to the court would be miles long.
> 
> He could have won that stage. His Dad could beat up his Mom. etc etc etc etc


The case revolves around possible retaliatory measures that were taken to intimidate a witness, not trash talk.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wrong lane*



chipped teeth said:


> The case revolves around possible retaliatory measures that were taken to intimidate a witness, not trash talk.


possible? Everything is possible. Odds are, thats hear say, ie TRASH TALK. Its possible that if I hold a Clark bar above my head, I am being threatening. OR, I love the fact that my favorite candy bar is back in style. Odds are, possibloe is another word for not sure or WASTE OF TIME IN THE COURT ROOM. What others call: TRASK TALK


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

ttug said:


> possible? Everything is possible. Odds are, thats hear say, ie TRASH TALK. Its possible that if I hold a Clark bar above my head, I am being threatening. OR, I love the fact that my favorite candy bar is back in style. Odds are, possibloe is another word for not sure or WASTE OF TIME IN THE COURT ROOM. What others call: TRASK TALK


I'm not sure why you are trying so hard for a fight. When I wrote possible, I meant in the way that a judge will have to decide, not like it's possible that you are functionally retarded. I don't think that there is any question that Lance used his position as the race favorite to smack down Simeoni over an issue that related in no way to the Tour. The question is whether that was witness intimidation under Italian law.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*what?*



chipped teeth said:


> I'm not sure why you are trying so hard for a fight. When I wrote possible, I meant in the way that a judge will have to decide, not like it's possible that you are functionally retarded. I don't think that there is any question that Lance used his position as the race favorite to smack down Simeoni over an issue that related in no way to the Tour. The question is whether that was witness intimidation under Italian law.


I could not care less about a "fight". It merely, IMO, ludicrous to have litigation on a matter like this.

Whats next, You Honor: "HE HURT MY FEELINGS........"

Cant you just feel the palpable GASP from the court room. 

Whats next: Your Honer:Life is not fair wooo hooo


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

wyomingclimber said:


> I would suggest that this could also be evidence that Ferrari is really good at what he does. Why would there be a fluctiation in Simeoni's HC from when he worked with Ferrari and when he didn't? Are you suggesting that he only dopes when he's not working with Ferrari? Come on...
> 
> As far as saying that the case againt Armstrong is completely without merit, I'm not sure this is true. Armstrong made it clear that Simeoni would not be allowed to win, due not to racing strategy, but because of his testimony. What if some guy high up in your company said "If you tell anyone about me shredding that document, I'll see to it you never get another promotion."
> 
> Not a perfect analogy, but Simeoni keeps his job based on his performance. If it is made known that he will be stopped from performing, he's got problems.



It would be hard to prove that Armstrong could have intimadated Simeoni enough to prevent him from winning a single stage. USPS was not invincible or infallible, even if Simeoni had taped the conversations during that stage, the defense would still be "just race tactics". If it were this easy to discourage contenders this tactic would be played out more often. There's 21 stages to possibly win. Simeoni had a shot to win anyone of them just like everyone else in the race. Simeoni didn't call his bluff.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

ttug said:


> I could not care less about a "fight". It merely, IMO, ludicrous to have litigation on a matter like this.
> 
> Whats next, You Honor: "HE HURT MY FEELINGS........"
> 
> ...


It isn't litigation, it's a criminal investigation. As an analogy, it's the difference between Valerie Plame suing Scooter Libby because he functionally ended her career (which has not occurred), and the justice department indicting him because he broke the law (which has).


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

So, Lance has "dared to break the peloton's rule of omerta". Since when do people go to jail for breaking this? 
Omerta is the rule of silence, Armstrong hasn't broken it, *he* has a history of bad-mouthing riders like Bassons or Simeoni for breaking the code of omerta in cycling. It used to be called "spitting in the soup".

1. When Armstrong saw Simeoni jump away from the bunch to bridge up to the break he joined him and they made it op to the break.
2. When the others in the break saw who had come up to them they were annoyed that LA was there because the break was no longer just made up of non-GC riders so Basso, Ullrich etc would close the break down.
3. LA tells them that he's staying, *unless *SImeoni drops back to the peleton.
4. So *they *put pressure on Simeoni to leave!

At the very least LA was being unsportsmanlike. IMO it showed a major lack of class. If he didn't want Simeoni to win a stage or a prime the way to do it is to beat him not act like a playground bully. FFS he was sueing LA for defamation, is LA that stupid or divorced from reality that he thinks no one notices or cares.

In that one day, LA lost any respect I had for his acheivements, by showing himself to be petty beyond belief.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*well again I'm no LA Homer*

but to me he pulled a 'patron' move worthy of Hinault and Merckx. Sorry folks that's GT racing under a dominant rider. and LA doesn't do every race so Simeoni ahs plenty of races available to win.

regarding H-Crit. If I came into a trainer with an H-Crit of 49 and under his care either illegally or legally dropped to 46 I'd find another trainer.
If after I left my H-Crit went up, who do you blame, the trainer or the individual?
I


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

*Boy, pretty silly..*



cmg said:


> It would be hard to prove that Armstrong could have intimadated Simeoni enough to prevent him from winning a single stage. USPS was not invincible or infallible, even if Simeoni had taped the conversations during that stage, the defense would still be "just race tactics". If it were this easy to discourage contenders this tactic would be played out more often. There's 21 stages to possibly win. Simeoni had a shot to win anyone of them just like everyone else in the race. Simeoni didn't call his bluff.


So Simeoni pissed off Armstrong and Armstrong got even by "beating up on him" in the Tour? Riding hard and not letting Simeoni have his own way? Sounds like Simeoni picked the wrong guy to piss off. And now he is sueing Lance for chasing him down during a race? Come on, that is downright silly! "Intimidating a Witness" someone says? What is Lance supposed to do, let Simeoni just ride off, keeping the possible legal ramifications of not doing so in mind? Even when Lance has the legs to work the guy over? And when Simeoni gave Lance a personal reasons to not like him? What next? Will we all have to have palm pilots on our handlebars to keep track of standings each stage of each race, just so that we don't "harm someone's chance to earn a living" by out-racing them, one on one? I can see it now..."Ok, I am out in front on GC by almost 2 minutes, so I better back off and let everyone else beat me by a minute and a half, or they will look weak, and may not get hired again next year" "Then they'll sue me for beating them, when I really didn't have any reason to?" Nope, Simeoni pissed off a stronger rider. He paid the price. You don't wipe your butt on Superman's cape, or however that old song went.(smiley face!)
.One of the skills needed to be a good road racer is the ability to get along with the others you race against. You must do that. If you get people pissed at you, they may (and probably will) 'hurt' you if they can. If you start a personal vendetta with someone who can choose to either help or hurt you later in the race (or later in the season) that is a dumb move. When the S-man expected LA to let him get away after he 'defied' LA, that was wishful thinking. We've all seen it in our own little races sometimes. The one complete jerk who alienates everyone in the whole pack..Do we let him get away with that? Nope. Do we actually help him win? Not hardly..Even Armstrong is smart enough to not piss people in the peloton off unnecessarily, and he can (could) outride anyone alive.
I'd guess the whole lawsuit thing is a ploy to gain noteriety..Simeoni's name will now be more marketable..Teams will want him as the 'guy who sued Armstrong'..Winning that stage would soon have been forgotten, but this silly court case will get big ink for the guy in the cycling press. I bet his agent brought that suit..And his agent dopes..I seen in in the SF Chronical, or was it the NY Times...hee hee.
dumb..Don Hanson.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Gnarly 928 said:


> ...And now he is sueing Lance for chasing him down during a race?...blah...blah...I'd guess the whole lawsuit thing is a ploy to gain noteriety...Simeoni's name will now be more marketable..Teams will want him as the 'guy who sued Armstrong'..Winning that stage would soon have been forgotten, but this silly court case will get big ink for the guy in the cycling press. I bet his agent brought that suit...


Do you have a single clue about the case? Or are you just making this up as you type?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Gnarly 928 said:


> So Simeoni pissed off Armstrong and Armstrong got even by "beating up on him" in the Tour? Riding hard and not letting Simeoni have his own way? Sounds like Simeoni picked the wrong guy to piss off. And now he is sueing Lance for chasing him down during a race? Come on, that is downright silly! "Intimidating a Witness" someone says? What is Lance supposed to do, let Simeoni just ride off, keeping the possible legal ramifications of not doing so in mind? Even when Lance has the legs to work the guy over? And when Simeoni gave Lance a personal reasons to not like him? What next? Will we all have to have palm pilots on our handlebars to keep track of standings each stage of each race, just so that we don't "harm someone's chance to earn a living" by out-racing them, one on one? I can see it now..."Ok, I am out in front on GC by almost 2 minutes, so I better back off and let everyone else beat me by a minute and a half, or they will look weak, and may not get hired again next year" "Then they'll sue me for beating them, when I really didn't have any reason to?" Nope, Simeoni pissed off a stronger rider. He paid the price. You don't wipe your butt on Superman's cape, or however that old song went.(smiley face!)


No, Simeoni "pissed LA off" by speaking about Ferrari and as I understand it mentioned LA in the process. LA referred to Simeoni as "un menteur absolu" in an interview. So Simeoni issued a writ for defamation. 
Come the Tour and we have the now infamous incident of LA "spoiling" Simeoni's attempt to infiltrate a potentially stage winning break. The Italian authorities are investigating this as an attempt to intimidate a witness/litigant. 
This is not racing as I want it. LA was not riding to win the stage, he was riding to spoil another rider's chance out of spite. It's fair enough to ride to spoil his chance by winning yourself, but this was just petty. 
Merckx or Hinault may very well have chased a rider they didn't want to win. But they'd have ridden to win themselves. Plus the fact that they were able to win any race (and frequently did) all year long. That's why they were worthy of the name "Patron" and Armstrong never was.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

What a sloppy piece of reporting - the intimidation case was dropped a while ago. The current charge relates to an interview Armstrong gave in which he called Simeoni a liar - this in relation to Simeoni's testimony in the Ferrari case. Simeoni has taken Armstrong to court for defamation - which, in light of the fact that Ferrari has been convicted of sporting fraud, seems reasonable.

Far better coverage of the story is available here:
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto802740.shtml


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

.....


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> but to me he pulled a 'patron' move worthy of Hinault and Merckx. Sorry folks that's GT racing under a dominant rider. and LA doesn't do every race so Simeoni ahs plenty of races available to win.I


As someone pointed out, this is all moot. The current case, I believe, relates to Lance calling Simeoni a liar for saying Ferrari was a doper. And since it appears that the courts have judged Ferrari a doper, it follows that Simeoni was not a liar. So it seems like Simeoni has a decent case. 



atpjunkie said:


> regarding H-Crit. If I came into a trainer with an H-Crit of 49 and under his care either illegally or legally dropped to 46 I'd find another trainer.
> If after I left my H-Crit went up, who do you blame, the trainer or the individual?
> I


The point I was trying to make was that by paying Ferrari's exorbitant fees, I would expect to test in the low 40s and ride in the low 60s. Such is his magic...


----------



## 2Fast2Furryious (Jun 11, 2004)

One day we'll al look back at this and laugh, Simeoni and Armstrong included. Have any of you read some sort of comprehensive history of the TdF?

You'll read something like, "...and Hinault's teammate decided to pull a prank on the 'patron,' which involved exposing him to the 'Folger's Difference' - switching his morning coffee to decaf - and though he was immediately fired by the team and found mutilated in the hotel dumpster the same day, Hinault went on to win the Tour that year with great style and panache."

And here we are discussing about whether or not Simeoni (a known, convicted doper) is invloved in pursuing legal action because his little breakaway got closed down. Good job on keeping your mouth shut with omerta thing in place when you testified in court, jerk. Face it: you lied about doping, got caught, have sucked ever since even in races when the Lance Boogeyman was not present. Sue all the other people who closed down your moves all throughout your career too.

Christ. Do you see McEwen crying this much (and he is the biggest whiner ever) about his lost green jerseys, or Ullrich conferring with his legal team over being shot that oh-so-intimidating "Look" in 2001?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Does nobody on this forum bother to fact check - I suppose the real story, Simeoni suing for libel after Armstrong called him 'an absolute liar' for testifying against Ferrari (another convicted cheat), just doesn't provide enough excuses for bashing other nationalities, does it?


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

Can't Armstrong just send a nice big F*ck you to the Italians and say he's not showing up for court? He is not an Italian citizen, and he wasn't in Italy when he called Simeoni a liar.

All he has to do is decide not to visit Italy for a few years. The US will laugh in the Italians face if they asked Lance to be extradited for such a silly claim. Then Lance can just wait a few years till the Italian prosecuter retires/loses his job whatever and the Italians forget about it.

Perhaps the Italian government should ignore spats between Athletes and focus on more important things like say, having an economy that grows year to year instead of shrinking.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> Does nobody on this forum bother to fact check - I suppose the real story, Simeoni suing for libel after Armstrong called him 'an absolute liar' for testifying against Ferrari (another convicted cheat), just doesn't provide enough excuses for bashing other nationalities, does it?


It does if you are Mr. Armstrong or one of his fans. Maybe he wants to switch from French bashing to Italian bashing. I wonder if the talking points have been sent to his fans, various cycling publications, and the regular press. Perhaps we will soon be reading about the jealous, bitter Italians in editorials, letters to the editor, and dodgy articles like that one in SI.

I did notice in Armstrong's latest interview he attempted to play nice with the French in general and blame everything on L'Equipe and the TdF organizers. Evidently they are part of a vast conspiracy that was out to get him for years. The fact that he brought it on himself does not seem to have crossed his mind.. I get the feeling that he thinks the organizers personally betrayed him. He did not mention that the organizers of the TdF supported him right up to the time that evidence of his use of EPO emerged. I am a little perplexed by his anger. Did he really expect the organization that has been at the forefront of the anti-doping movement to give him a free pass? Should they have patted him on the back and said, "You retired a month before getting caught. Good job."


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

At the same time maybe it is the Lance Haters who are living in a conspiracy theory.

Without a doubt the French, UCI, etc.. all tried very hard to do anything they could to nail Armstrong to the wall for the last 5-6 years.

For everything they tried they were not able to find any evidence to bust him via UCI/WADA/USADA rules or international law. He never failed a test, he was never caught with drugs, etc.. He is now retired, he is not going to get caught now.

It is time for the Lance haters to just be quiet and let the man retire and fade away. He was never busted, it is impossible for him to be busted now.

If doping scandals are interesting to you, there is no shortage of other riders who are getting caught... plenty of sh*t for the flies to swarm around.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

2Fast2Furryious said:


> And here we are discussing about whether or not Simeoni (a known, convicted doper) is invloved in pursuing legal action because his little breakaway got closed down. Good job on keeping your mouth shut with omerta thing in place when you testified in court, jerk. Face it: you lied about doping, got caught, have sucked ever since even in races when the Lance Boogeyman was not present. Sue all the other people who closed down your moves all throughout your career too.


He's not sueing Armstrong for that. His suit *predates *the Tour. The Italian authorities are investigating because it could be construed as interfering with a witness, as this poster illustrated 3 days ago!!!


wyomingclimber said:


> As far as saying that the case againt Armstrong is completely without merit, I'm not sure this is true. Armstrong made it clear that Simeoni would not be allowed to win, due not to racing strategy, but because of his testimony. What if some guy high up in your company said "If you tell anyone about me shredding that document, I'll see to it you never get another promotion."


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Why is it so many are happy to pillory Simeoni, yet won't criticise Armstrong's comments regarding Bassons and other riders who have spoken of doping? It is as bad in my opinion to suppress discussion as it is to actually dope. In some respects it is worse to prevent free speech on this subject, especially someone in such a prominent position as Armstrong.
In political circles, if a lobbyist made a contribution to government it would be viewed suspiciously......


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> Why is it so many are happy to pillory Simeoni, yet won't criticise Armstrong's comments regarding Bassons and other riders who have spoken of doping? It is as bad in my opinion to suppress discussion as it is to actually dope. In some respects it is worse to prevent free speech on this subject, especially someone in such a prominent position as Armstrong.
> In political circles, if a lobbyist made a contribution to government it would be viewed suspiciously......


By Armstrong's logic, any talk of doping is bad for cycling, the sport that feeds his kids, as he put it in a recent interview. He is definetely of the keep your mouth shut and don't draw attention to it, school of thinking.

Doping is killing the sport whether Armstrong want to admit it or not. When is the last time that you heard or read about cycling as a sport being praised for it's efforts to clean up it's act? I personally don't recall ever hearing anyone outside of cycling (UCI, media, cyclists, teams, cycling journalists etc...) praise cycling for their efforts. There seem to be plenty out there that like to roll around in the mud with the pigs. It makes good copy and scandal sells.

The problem with the Armstrong mentality, is that if you don't get it out in the open and do something about it, there isn't going to be anything left in cycling worth saving.

You can see the exact opposite school of though at WADA. Dick Pound, WADA, the anti-doping labs and the rest of the so-called anti-doping crusaders out there, sure as hell aren't helping matters. As long as they continue to leak results to the media and act as judge jury and executioner against an athlete's career before they even test the B sample, it's hard to treat them with any level of respect. And that lack of respect plays right to the doper's sympathy card.

If the doping tests are so infallible, then why do they need the B sample? If you don't have the B sample tested keep your mouth shut. Find the leaks, and fire them. Once you have your case locked down, go public and sanction the rider. 

By letting things slip to the media, they assasinate the character of the athlete before due process is carried out, by the very rules and regulations that they have set up. 

As we have it now, you get a big media battle with the athlete trying to garner sympathy from the public. If the public views the sanctioning process as fair and unbiased, then there isn't going to be much sympathy for the doper. Sure they can appeal it all the way to CAS, but the dopers are going to get about as much public sympathy as a convicted criminal going for the status quo appeal process looking for a technicality to get off on.

To me it looks like there are a bunch of "corrupt politician" types trying to sanction a bunch of cheaters.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I'll have to dig them up, may take some time*

I think the evil Dr Ferrari (just joshin') refers to Simeoni's H-Crit levels in the Bicycling Mag Interview if ya need a quick check.
oh and Ferrari's case is on appeal right now so hold yer horses everybody. Since I know none of these guys personally I have a hard time hating any of them. If Ferrari's conviction is weighted and based mostly on Simeoni's testimony, that's the equivalent of a guy getting convicted on the testimony of a con trying to ease his own punishment. I hope there's more to his conviction than Simeoni's word.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*why do we care?*

A weaker rider, pissed off a stronger rider and the weaker rider got beaten like a rented pack mule during a race. COME ON PEOPLE! Whats next, Are you going to complain because you went to a ***** house and didnt feel loved? 

Its human nature to act the way Armstrong did. It happens. Look at Hinault. There were MANY STAGES where he did NOT have to win but he did. He did because he was Hinault.

Odds are boith KLance and Hinault will have their detractors. Personally, they are both are a bit wanting in the ability to NOT be a prick, but again, its human nature. LITIGATING over this is ludicrous and a waste of time. Simeoni lacks the talent, but he has a big yapper and as such, he will shine IN COURT, BIG DEAL.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*don't be obtuse.*



ttug said:


> ................



it's been established already in this thread that the impetus for the suit was LA calling him "a liar" in the press, not anything that occured on the bike. 
From the eurosport link BG posted- "Armstrong was placed under formal investigation in August 2004 for 'private violence' against Simeoni after he chased the Italian down during stage 18 of the 2004 Tour de France. <b>But that investigation was closed earlier this year.</b>"


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*golly tamale*



 blackhat said:


> it's been established already in this thread that the impetus for the suit was LA calling him "a liar" in the press, not anything that occured on the bike.
> From the eurosport link BG posted- "Armstrong was placed under formal investigation in August 2004 for 'private violence' against Simeoni after he chased the Italian down during stage 18 of the 2004 Tour de France. <b>But that investigation was closed earlier this year.</b>"


Yes, we all know human nature is that no matter what happens or what name you are called, its really all about having his feelings hurt at being called a liar. 

Yes, thats true. However, if you want to try to determine the character of a person, I do not think its beyond the pale to use their past actions as a source. So, look he called me a liar and he is also a real swell guy who did this in stage x of the TDF. While yes, that suit was closed, it is very relevant to the "litigation" at hand.

I would ask, that you not be so myopic as to think that gee, these types of things will never ever get brought up in such a litigation which, again, IMO, again, IMO, is a joke.

If you think that makes me obtuse, dont practice law.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

ttug said:


> If you think that makes me obtuse, dont practice law.


Glad I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yes*



chipped teeth said:


> Glad I'm not a lawyer.


I am glad too.......


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

lance lives in a world of suspicion and paranoia, a world under constant attack from the real World, the enemy World. Despite his successes, I can't imagine him being a very happy or contented person.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> If Ferrari's conviction is weighted and based mostly on Simeoni's testimony, that's the equivalent of a guy getting convicted on the testimony of a con trying to ease his own punishment.


There is no equivalence at all. A good analogy would be a con who testifies even though he knows he will be sent back to the general prison population with all of this fellow prisoners aware that he is a rat. Simeoni could have kept mum and refused to cooperate like Axel Merckx. Instead he told the truth about Dr. Ferrari, went back to the peloton, and had to deal with thugs like Armstrong.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*agreed*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> There is no equivalence at all. A good analogy would be a con who testifies even though he knows he will be sent back to the general prison population with all of this fellow prisoners aware that he is a rat. Simeoni could have kept mum and refused to cooperate like Axel Merckx. Instead he told the truth about Dr. Ferrari, went back to the peloton, and had to deal with thugs like Armstrong.


I agree. Its human nature. The amazement I have is at foklks who find this shocking behavior. It could be Lance or me or you etc etc etc ANYBODY could act like this in a respective setting. I call it a foible, other will say wow what a POS he is for etc etc etc.

IMO, I agree, it was thug like behavior, but I was not at all stunned amazed or disappointed. AGAIN, these are human beings.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

alienator said:


> I don't get it: are all Americans so stupid as to believe 1, 2, or 100 people are the measure of an entire nation? Apparently. If Italians and the French are wearing dresses, then Americans are bumbling about with empty cranial vaults.


LOL, the irony of that statement is astounding.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

wipeout said:


> LOL, the irony of that statement is astounding.


How so? My experiences overseas have all been that citizens of other countries do not, in general, judge people by he nationality they happen to be. Americans, however often generalize about whole societies because of the actions of a few. For example, while much of the world happened to have disagreed with the descision to invade Iraq, they do not hold individual US citizens responsible for the war. In contrast many Americans were so offended by the French government's opposition to the war that they declared boycotts of all things French including wine, fries, toast and the like.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*where*



chipped teeth said:


> How so? My experiences overseas have all been that citizens of other countries do not, in general, judge people by he nationality they happen to be. Americans, however often generalize about whole societies because of the actions of a few. For example, while much of the world happened to have disagreed with the descision to invade Iraq, they do not hold individual US citizens responsible for the war. In contrast many Americans were so offended by the French government's opposition to the war that they declared boycotts of all things French including wine, fries, toast and the like.


All people tend to do so with all nationalities. Over generalizing is hardly an American monoply.

You mention the French, OK, I am certain that would never happen in France. By the way, ever check who requires Visas more than any other western European Nation? 

Again, no argument here, its an observation that mny if not all nationalities act in that manner. Been there done that and have the T shirt.


----------

