# Levi should be the center of attention, not Lance.



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Why not? Lance is getting all the attention here. Is it because Lance is more arrogant? Is it because he is more successful? Is it because he "forced" the other adults on the team to take PEDs? Is it because he set up a Cancer Foundation? Is it because he sells "false hope".?

This whole thing is annoying. LA should not get a "free pass", but wow...lots of us sure want to see HIM fall. I don't hear a whole bunch about Levi and gang..


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Why not? Lance is getting all the attention here. Is it because Lance is more arrogant? Is it because he is more successful? Is it because he "forced" the other adults on the team to take PEDs? Is it because he set up a Cancer Foundation? Is it because he sells "false hope".?
> 
> This whole thing is annoying. LA should not get a "free pass", but wow...lots of us sure want to see HIM fall. I don't here a whole bunch about Levi and gang..


Ask the average American if they know who Lance Armstrong is and you will very likely get a positive answer. Ask them who Levi Leipheimer is and you are more likely to get a big HUH?


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Levi is the guy from the jeans company right?


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

This thread sucks.


----------



## HiImSeth (Jun 3, 2009)

What is going on here?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Ask the average American if they know who Lance Armstrong is and you will very likely get a positive answer. Ask them who Levi Leipheimer is and you are more likely to get a big HUH?



Exactly. I guess that for Lance, it is unfortunate that he actually WON races with his doping + hard work + diet + genetics + competitiveness............., unlike many of his counterparts who were most likely doped just like he was. 

Note: I am assuming that Lance's teammates, such as Levi were doped just like Lance. They could have only DREAMED of winning the TdF doped, yet they were assigned helpers because they lacked the talent needed to actually win the TdF doped.

Because they did not win, the media does not care if they doped or not. Rarely do you see anyone in these forums ranting about how Levi could perhaps be a fraud also, among many others...IF Levi has been the guy winning 7 times, HE would be the jackwagon that so many want to see FALL and burn...

It sounds odd, but IF Lance was doped, he is essentially a victim of his own hard work and successes. Yeh, he may be a jerk (as many of you have said or alluded to..), but really, because he actually had the dope + talent and won races, suddenly so many of us are screaming about how his a HUGE fraud. Had Lance earned a top 10 spot 7 times, would all of this disgust be aimed at him??

LA does not deserve a free pass. I would just like to see more members upset with the other US riders who most likely have been on the same doping regimen as LA....IF LA was even doping?? I THINK he just might have been...


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

Is it fair to say Lance has gained the most financially from the USPS/Disco team successes?

Is it fair to say that Lance, more than any other RIDER, could be viewed as a leader of the USPS cycling team?

If the answer to both of the above is yes, then why shouldn't an investigation of systematic criminal behavior by the USPS cycling team focus on the so-called ringleader?

When the mafia is being investigated, do you defend the mob boss as being unfairly singled out because he is simply the most successful gangster?

Give it a rest!


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

clonechemist said:


> Is it fair to say Lance has gained the most financially from the USPS/Disco team successes?
> 
> Is it fair to say that Lance, more than any other RIDER, could be viewed as a leader of the USPS cycling team?
> 
> ...


fark me... name one thing that Lance has been accused of that is "CRIMINAL"?


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

nathanbal said:


> fark me... name one thing that Lance has been accused of that is "CRIMINAL"?


I'm not a member of the grand jury, so I can't really comment intelligently.

Are you on the grand jury? Are you privy to all the information uncovered by the investigation?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKB9kJFPQK1-D9n_HllA_3nhyTMgD9HG84800

Do you even know how a grand jury works?


----------



## are (Feb 5, 2005)

I imagine the current investigation by the Feds is focused on criminal matters. For example, if the Feds find that Lance did dope to win the Tour in certain years, he may have committed perjury in the insurance company lawsuit. Also, I have no idea how it would work, but I think I saw mention of fraud/mis-use of government funds re: doping on USPS.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

clonechemist said:


> A. Is it fair to say Lance has gained the most financially from the USPS/Disco team successes?
> 
> B.Is it fair to say that Lance, more than any other RIDER, could be viewed as a leader of the USPS cycling team?
> 
> ...



A. Yes, because he actually wins.

B. Yes, because he actually wins.

C. Mob bosses ordering hits on peoples' lives is a little bit different than having adults who are paid professional athletes choose to dope along with the team leader of a cycling outfit. That is a horrible comparison.

D. I could say the same for all those who accuse Lance of being mob boss like "gangster" who go on and on about how he is a criminal unlike any other in the biz...when it bleeds it leads...nothing surprising from media. SOP here...just annoying. While I do think LA is guilty of doping, I felt like offering up a little balance to the equation here.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> Why not? Lance is getting all the attention here. Is it because Lance is more arrogant? Is it because he is more successful? Is it because he "forced" the other adults on the team to take PEDs? Is it because he set up a Cancer Foundation? Is it because he sells "false hope".?
> 
> This whole thing is annoying. LA should not get a "free pass", but wow...lots of us sure want to see HIM fall. I don't hear a whole bunch about Levi and gang..


How do you know that it is not Leipheimer or Andreu who is the center of the investigation? All you read is whatever is on the press, or Spinstrong press releases. The press, and Spinstrong, focus on Armstrong simply because it is the most recognized name to the public. 

Who knows, they could really be focusing on Allen Lim or Vaughters or heck, even Buryneel?


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Bizarre.
________
KatushaVova cam


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> How do you know that it is not Leipheimer or Andreu who is the center of the investigation? All you read is whatever is on the press, or Spinstrong press releases. The press, and Spinstrong, focus on Armstrong simply because it is the most recognized name to the public.
> 
> Who knows, they could really be focusing on Allen Lim or Vaughters or heck, even Buryneel?


People are mixing up the newspapers reports--which of course focus on the celebrity--with the investigation: which is private and confidential at this stage. You are 100% correct. Levi could be a central focus of the ongoing criminal investigation. In fact, I'd bet the investigation will ultimately end up focusing on whoever they get evidence against as it proceeds.


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> People are mixing up the newspapers reports--which of course focus on the celebrity--with the investigation: which is private and confidential at this stage. You are 100% correct. Levi could be a central focus of the ongoing criminal investigation. In fact, I'd bet the investigation will ultimately end up focusing on whoever they get evidence against as it proceeds.



+1....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Gatorback said:


> In fact, I'd bet the investigation will ultimately end up focusing on whoever they get evidence against as it proceeds.


True but Armstong's team is clearly worried he'll be pegged as more than "just a rider or employee" of the team since they are already trying to spin it that that is all he was. Anyone who followed cycling over the years knows that is not the picture that was painted by him or the media, or his team mates. How many riders left because of or complained afterwards about the overly controlling nature of Armstrong? 

On another note, it may be telling that Armstrong is a focus of the investigation since they haven't bothered to subpoena him. You would think if it was the higher-ups only that were the focus, Armstrong would be someone they would want to talk to.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

The prosecutor is not going to make a name for himself going after the smaller named riders. It's unfortunately how the US justice system works. 

It would be totally absurd if Armstrong was the only guy ever to go to jail for winning the tour doped against other doped riders. There can't be anyone out there who knows anything about the sport that wants that to happen.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Gatorback said:


> People are mixing up the newspapers reports--which of course focus on the celebrity--with the investigation: which is private and confidential at this stage. You are 100% correct. Levi could be a central focus of the ongoing criminal investigation. In fact, I'd bet the investigation will ultimately end up focusing on whoever they get evidence against as it proceeds.


You obviously have not been reading these forums. There are a large number of people on here who seem to get a personal daily briefing from the investigators. That's why they can get on her and opine about the lack of evidence, where the investigation is going, what theories the investigators are pursuing, etc.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> It would be totally absurd if Armstrong was the only guy ever to go to jail for winning the tour doped against other doped riders.


I think it extremely unlikely he would go to jail for doping, or perhaps even suffer any kind of penalty. Probably what's most likely to get him in trouble is lying, similar to Marion Jones. I think even if they find out there were financial shenanigans surrounding paying for a doping program, he won't get in trouble unless he's caught lying about what he knows.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> How do you know that it is not Leipheimer or Andreu who is the center of the investigation? All you read is whatever is on the press, or Spinstrong press releases. The press, and Spinstrong, focus on Armstrong simply because it is the most recognized name to the public.
> 
> Who knows, they could really be focusing on Allen Lim or Vaughters or heck, even Buryneel?



That is my point. Sorry if I was not clear. Us RBR members should be more aware than the general public and direct some of the disgust towards riders such as Levi. But no....down with Lance!! I have not read one single disgust ridden post about the possibilites that riders such as Hincapie, Dave Z etc are just as guilty as LA. Good thing they did not actually WIN! Stupid. The media is guilty too, but again this is SOP from the media. I expect more from the members here. Just my opinion...

Why all the Lance hate? Oh wait...it's because he actually won while doped instead of placing 9th.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think it extremely unlikely he would go to jail for doping, or perhaps even suffer any kind of penalty. Probably what's most likely to get him in trouble is lying, similar to Marion Jones. I think even if they find out there were financial shenanigans surrounding paying for a doping program, he won't get in trouble unless he's caught lying about what he knows.


Well technically it is not a doping inquiry but that's what it basically amounts to. I agree they will try to get him on something different like lying, and that could be quite a problem since he is likely to deny everything. 

I don't know all the details of how the American system works but I would have thought taking the 5th might be his best route.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> That is my point. Sorry if I was not clear. Us RBR members should be more aware than the general public and direct some of the disgust towards riders such as Levi. But no....down with Lance!! I have not read one single disgust ridden post about the possibilites that riders such as Hincapie, Dave Z etc are just as guilty as LA. Good thing they did not actually WIN! Stupid. The media is guilty too, but again this is SOP from the media. I expect more from the members here. Just my opinion...
> 
> Why all the Lance hate? Oh wait...it's because he actually won while doped instead of placing 9th.


If you don't like that a certain person or topic is the center of attention, why do you hang around this particular forum then?? 

Nobody controls what the topic should or should not be. And you're the one who has started MANY threads on Spinstrong yourself. 

Kettle, meet pot.


----------



## jackwatts (Mar 28, 2008)

Rex Hunter said:


> The prosecutor is not going to make a name for himself going after the smaller named riders. It's unfortunately how the US justice system works.
> 
> It would be totally absurd if Armstrong was the only guy ever to go to jail for winning the tour doped against other doped riders. There can't be anyone out there who knows anything about the sport that wants that to happen.


If he goes to jail, it won't be for doping. People can, and do, go to jail for fraud and perjury. His testimony in the SCA case opens him up for charges on both if he's found to have doped.

Levi wasn't an owner or principle actor of Tailwind Sports, so why would he be a focus of the investigation? Again, while we don't know what the focus of the investigation may be, it certainly isn't "doping", since that's not technically against the law post facto (having controlled substances on hand is illegal, but once they're used, you're in the clear).

The thread seems to be bit of an obfuscation of reality.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> If you don't like that a certain person or topic is the center of attention, why do you hang around this particular forum then??
> 
> Nobody controls what the topic should or should not be. And you're the one who has started MANY threads on Spinstrong yourself.
> 
> Kettle, meet pot.


Your logic is off. Sorry, but that is exactly why members "hang around" in certain forums.

Much like someone may be bothered by a political matter and "hang around" to see what others think in those forums...

You have not answered the questions. I am fully aware of the two threads that were LA based regarding this issue. Two is MANY in your book. That logic is off also.

Still, it would be refreshing if the sharks backed off a bit. There is other food in the water in case you have not cared to notice...

Shark, meet Lance.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

jackwatts said:


> If he goes to jail, it won't be for doping. People can, and do, go to jail for fraud and perjury. His testimony in the SCA case opens him up for charges on both if he's found to have doped.
> 
> Levi wasn't an owner or principle actor of Tailwind Sports, so why would he be a focus of the investigation? Again, while we don't know what the focus of the investigation may be, it certainly isn't "doping", since that's not technically against the law post facto (having controlled substances on hand is illegal, but once they're used, you're in the clear).
> 
> The thread seems to be bit of an obfuscation of reality.


Hi, welcome to the forum. 

Yes, as I said, technically it's not about doping, but in reality that is indeed what it's about. This whole case is really a technicality since it comes down to this issue of USPS being a federal sponsor. Nobody complained about this before it was dreamt up as a way to get Armstrong a few months back.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously? You don't know why the attention falls on Lance? 
Do you understand what a figurehead is? Levi is a smaller fish the Landis and no one cares about the small fish. Federal investigations go after big fish not small fish. They go for the figureheads. It's simple politics but even simple things can obviously be hard for some to understand.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

TheDon said:


> Seriously? You don't know why the attention falls on Lance?
> Do you understand what a figurehead is? Levi is a smaller fish the Landis and no one cares about the small fish. Federal investigations go after big fish not small fish. They go for the figureheads. It's simple politics but even simple things can obviously be hard for some to understand.


He likes to follow me around on rbr for some odd reason...forum to forum... What I don't get is this:
"Levi is a smaller fish the Landis" Can you explain what this means so that I can form a response please?

I think that what you are implying is that we should continue to focus our disgust on Lance alone because he is a "figurehead" who actually won races, while pros that most likely doped such as Dave Z, Levi and gang should get a free pass w/ little to no discussion here on rbr because they are not "figureheads".

While it has always been clear to me why the Feds are targeting Lance primarily, it has not been so clear why the rbr members overwhelmingly seem to want to see LA fall while seemingly tend to ignore Levi and gang.....read the OP.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> He likes to follow me around on rbr for some odd reason...forum to forum... What I don't get is this:
> "Levi is a smaller fish the Landis" Can you explain what this means so that I can form a response please?


Apparently I can't post in Doping or Pro without following a newb around. Don't start posting in PO or the lounge or I'll be following you around there too  

Landis is bigger than Levi, Landis won the TDF, Levi hasn't, what's more to say? You mention Landis's name you'll get the average person to respond, Levi not so much. Pretty simple but paranoia can be the result in delusion therefore even the simple might be unreachable for some. 




rydbyk said:


> I think that what you are implying is that we should continue to focus our disgust on Lance alone because he is a "figurehead" who actually won races, while pros that most likely doped such as Dave Z, Levi and gang should get a free pass w/ little to no discussion here on rbr because they are not "figureheads".
> 
> While it has always been clear to me why the Feds are targeting Lance primarily, it has not been so clear why the rbr members overwhelmingly seem to want to see LA fall while seemingly tend to ignore Levi and gang.....read the OP.


RBR members are targeting lance for the same reasons I mentioned, he's the figure head. When we talk about the Packers we don't talk Jason Sitton we talk Aaron Rodgers, it's the same with any sport or sports discussion we focus on the big names not the supporting cast.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

TheDon said:


> Apparently I can't post in Doping or Pro without following a newb around. Don't start posting in PO or the lounge or I'll be following you around there too
> 
> Landis is bigger than Levi, Landis won the TDF, Levi hasn't, what's more to say? You mention Landis's name you'll get the average person to respond, Levi not so much. Pretty simple but paranoia can be the result in delusion therefore even the simple might be unreachable for some.
> 
> ...



You validated my point. You can only focus on the successful athletes that dope, not the losers that did the exact same thing. Down with evil Lance!!!!!


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> You validated my point. You can only focus on the successful athletes that dope, not the losers that did the exact same thing. Down with evil Lance!!!!!


Yes, down with Lance in hopes the bringing Lance down will help prevent future doping much more than going after wash ups or domestiques.


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> You validated my point. You can only focus on the successful athletes that dope, not the losers that did the exact same thing. Down with evil Lance!!!!!


I initially thought you were just another Lance fanboi. So it turns out you just have a bone to pick with posters who are happy to see him receive his just desserts? To the point where you are starting, and then hijacking, your own threads? I wish you would just leave.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

clonechemist said:


> I initially thought you were just another Lance fanboi. So it turns out you just have a bone to pick with posters who are happy to see him receive his just desserts? To the point where you are starting, and then hijacking, your own threads? I wish you would just leave.



You don't get it. They should ALL get theirs. Why so much hate for Lance? Oh wait...because he was actually talented enough to win. Sucks for him that he didn't get ninth 7 times. If so, you clearly wouldn't care that he was possibly doped. If it was someone else that won 7 times and doped just like everyone else (most likely), would you focus ALL of your disgust on them only?

As far as having a bone to pick...seems like some rbr members have some pure hatred for the LA..

Apparently I have asked a very difficult question to answer, as nobody has given any other response than the standard "He is the ringleader" type of suggestion and something to the effect of "Well in 'merica nobody knows of any other cyclist, so he gets the 'tention." Whatever...they are all grown adults who chose to enter a sport that odds are you will have access the dopy dope. They can say "no", but apparently they fear LA so much that they just give in. Poor Levi and gang....lets cut them some slack! Lets focus on the "mob boss" ONLY.

I am no LA fanboy. Never was. You leave...:thumbsup:


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

TheDon said:


> Yes, down with Lance in hopes the bringing Lance down will help prevent future doping much more than going after wash ups or domestiques.


Nothing will change if LA is the only one who gets punished for doping. Everyone will laugh while doping continues. At least I see your point of view clearly now. We disagree.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> You don't get it. They should ALL get theirs. Why so much hate for Lance? Oh wait...because he was actually talented enough to win. Sucks for him that he didn't get ninth 7 times. If so, you clearly wouldn't care that he was possibly doped. If it was someone else that won 7 times and doped just like everyone else (most likely), would you focus ALL of your disgust on them only?
> 
> As far as having a bone to pick...seems like some rbr members have some pure hatred for the LA..
> 
> ...


If he doped, Lance benefited from the advantage to a greater degree than others. Perhaps this is why the winner/leader of the race is tested more often than regular joe schmoe of the peloton (in addition to random controls). It only makes sense that the investigation revolves around top guys who benefited from it substantially, rather than say some cat-5 rider. If the goal of investigation is to set an example and to show that nobody is above the law, then getting Lance is much more valuable than getting Levi or Zabriskie or Hincapie.

Having said that, I also think that the negative impact of this investigation (epecially if successful) for the sport will by far outweigh the positive impact and I have the "accident by the side of the road" feeling about this whole thing - while it's (in a somwhat morbid way) fascinating to watch as it unfolds, I kinda wish it never happened.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

55x11 said:


> If he doped, Lance benefited from the advantage to a greater degree than others. Perhaps this is why the winner/leader of the race is tested more often than regular joe schmoe of the peloton (in addition to random controls). It only makes sense that the investigation revolves around top guys who benefited from it substantially, rather than say some cat-5 rider. If the goal of investigation is to set an example and to show that nobody is above the law, then getting Lance is much more valuable than getting Levi or Zabriskie or Hincapie.
> 
> Having said that, I also think that the negative impact of this investigation (epecially if successful) for the sport will by far outweigh the positive impact and I have the "accident by the side of the road" feeling about this whole thing - while it's (in a somwhat morbid way) fascinating to watch as it unfolds, I kinda wish it never happened.



I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just don't get how he benefitted from doping to a greater degree than say Levi, for example. Is it because LA actually won the TdF 7X? If so, wouldn't that be possibly based on the additional variables (training, diet, genetics, high pain threshold etc etc) to doping that separate a team leader from the domestiques..assuming they all doped equally on the same team?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just don't get how he benefitted from doping to a greater degree than say Levi, for example. Is it because LA actually won the TdF 7X? If so, wouldn't that be possibly based on the additional variables (training, diet, genetics, high pain threshold etc etc) to doping that separate a team leader from the domestiques..assuming they all doped equally on the same team?


Why do you assume that?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

ArkRider said:


> You obviously have not been reading these forums. There are a large number of people on here who seem to get a personal daily briefing from the investigators. That's why they can get on her and opine about the lack of evidence, where the investigation is going, what theories the investigators are pursuing, etc.


You're right. Unfortunately, although I get up and go to work every day as a litigator, I'm not yet made my way into the select group getting those daily briefings from the federal investigator and prosecutor.


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just don't get how he benefitted from doping to a greater degree than say Levi, for example. Is it because LA actually won the TdF 7X? If so, wouldn't that be possibly based on the additional variables (training, diet, genetics, high pain threshold etc etc) to doping that separate a team leader from the domestiques..assuming they all doped equally on the same team?


This does not negate the 'mob boss' argument about why Lance would naturally be the focus of an investigation.

Mob bosses have great leadership skills compared to underlings. They work very hard compared to underlings. In that sense, according to your arguments, they are unfairly targeted in investigations because the underlings they are directing also chose to behave criminally, and the mob bosses are unfairly punished for having the natural talent to rise to the top of their chosen profession.

And again, if your ranting is all in response to individual RBR posters who you feel are taking too much pleasure in seeing Lance fall, why don't you call them out, individually, in the threads where you have taken offense? You really need to start a whole new thread and then make general arguments that are really quite dense, because you're offended that no one is crying out about Levi, Dave Z, etc?


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> I just don't get how he benefitted from doping to a greater degree than say Levi, for example. QUOTE]
> 
> (1) Levi, without dope, = domestic pro
> 
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

clonechemist said:


> rydbyk said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't get how he benefitted from doping to a greater degree than say Levi, for example. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Why do you assume that?



OK..someone gives you a million dollars to bet with. Was Lance the only one on the team doping? Where do you put your money? Yes or No?

I would put my money on "No". That is all. 

BTW, at this point, I would spend a decent sum of money to find out that I am wrong...wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> OK..someone gives you a million dollars to bet with. Was Lance the only one on the team doping? Where do you put your money? Yes or No?
> 
> I would put my money on "No". That is all.
> 
> BTW, at this point, I would spend a decent sum of money to find out that I am wrong...wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise


Good job changing the argument. You were dead wrong originally when you said this:


> assuming they all doped equally on the same team


but now that you've shifted the goalposts yet again (like you do in every thread here) you are closer to correct.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Nothing will change if LA *is the only one who gets punished for doping*. Everyone will laugh while doping continues. At least I see your point of view clearly now. We disagree.


Please set a timeline for your assumptions. If year 0 for the fight against doping is the year 2010, then you *may* have a point. However off the top of my head here's a few riders that got canned in the last decade. Some are smaller fish than others.

Ricardo Ricco
Michael Rasmussen
Alexandre Vinokourov
Andrei Kascheshkin
Vladimir Gusev
Ivan Basso 
Jan Ullrich
Leonardo Piepoli
Tyler Hamilton
Floyd Landis
Stefan Schumacher
Bernhard Kohl
Alejandro Valverde

From that list you can see that Lance is hardly the only one being targeted by investigations, foreign or domestic.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Good job changing the argument. You were dead wrong originally when you said this:
> 
> but now that you've shifted the goalposts yet again (like you do in every thread here) you are closer to correct.


Rydbyk: "I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just don't get how he benefitted from doping to a greater degree than say Levi, for example. Is it because LA actually won the TdF 7X? If so, wouldn't that be possibly based on the additional variables (training, diet, genetics, high pain threshold etc etc) to doping that separate a team leader from the domestiques..assuming they all doped equally on the same team?"

SilasCl: "Why do you assume that?"


I thought that you asked me about my "assumption"? I was addressing YOUR question here:
Rydbyk: OK..someone gives you a million dollars to bet with. Was Lance the only one on the team doping? Where do you put your money? Yes or No?

I would put my money on "No". That is all. 

BTW, at this point, I would spend a decent sum of money to find out that I am wrong...wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise

Be more clear if you want clear answers/responses. If you ask an ambiguous question, odds are that the response may not be spot on as you desire. 

In regards to "shifting goal posts"...it is bound to happen when jackwagon comments are made that should be addressed. This happens in EVERY thread..does not matter what the OP does/says. Often, the most interesting points made are a result. I don't find this to be a problem at all. The only way to fully avoid this is to write a perfectly clear dissertation as an OP...leave it at that and NEVER respond during the forks in the road as we navigate our way thru this thread or any other thread.

Enlighten me as to when I went off OP topic where I was not addressing someone else's comments first..

Also, just to be clear...did you allude to the idea that it is NOT safe to assume that Lance's team mates were doping just like Lance? IF so, then that changes everything doesn't it? IF they were not doping just like Lance, then by ALL MEANS Lance should fry fry fry all alone. Absofrickenlutely!

at MG537. Sorry, I was only referring to Lance's current/recent American team mates here. I thought I made that clear in the OP...maybe not.. Addressing YOUR list, I don't recall so much RBR hatred towards Hamilton when he got popped. How come? (rhetorical question..not looking for response here) 

Oops...did I just change the argument again? Maybe I should not address anyones' comments or lists that could too be perceived as "off topic" for fear of being accused of "changing the argument"...silly goose Silas...


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> clonechemist said:
> 
> 
> > Essentially what you are saying is that Lance is more guilty because he happened to be more talented. So ridiculous. This is funny.
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Actually some would argue that Lance wasn't necessarily the more talented but that he reacted better to the injections.
> 
> However some of your previous arguments state that since Lance won or was the ringleader should not matter more than Levi's transgressions as a mere participant.
> That's like saying that an SS lieutenant was equally guilty as Adolf Hitler.
> ...



Those are MY words above...not clonechemist's btw...I did not know that Lance was the team director/owner. Sorry. Also, I have never heard your idea of one rider "reacting better to injections than others." How does this work exactly? Also, it does not make Lance any MORE guilty than the other Amer. teammates IF they were all attempting to get the same results from the illegal injections. Oops...just changed the topic again. I should not have asked you about this. Apologies folks.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

You assumed that they were all on the same program. I think that's a baseless assumption. I'd like to know where you're getting it from. I understand that there's no news story saying such a thing, but I imagine that there is at least some rumor or innuendo leading you to believe this, right? So back it up with something...


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Those are MY words above...not clonechemist's btw...I did not know that Lance was the team director/owner. Sorry. Also, I have never heard your idea of one rider "reacting better to injections than others." How does this work exactly? Also, it does not make Lance any MORE guilty than the other Amer. teammates IF they were all attempting to get the same results from the illegal injections. Oops...just changed the topic again. I should not have asked you about this. Apologies folks.


Let me try to answer the 2nd part first.
I do believe the investigation is whether Lance incited others in getting those substances and how he may have facilitated their acquisition. Not whether he consumed or not.
Let me explain how he could've incited someone. 
a) Hold a gun to someone's head <-- We can agree that this is highly unlikely
b) If you want to be part of the TdF team, I can show you how to increase your oxygen carrying capacity to stay at the front of the peloton where you'll be of some use to me. <-- Can we agree that this is the more likely scenario?

Now about reacting better to the "program". (aka injections)
We can agree that human physiology is a very complicated science? Can you believe that two chain smokers years from now can result in one developing lung cancer and the other not? If so, then this my understanding on EPO use and blood carrying capacity.
Rider A : Natural Hematocrit level at 38
Rider B: Natural Hematocrit level at 42.
Relatively equal talent displayed by both riders.
Both start "the program" together.
Both get their crit levels up to 46 (still under the UCI/WADA limit of 50)
Rider A leapfrogs Rider B and becomes champion. What the hell happened?
Well Rider A increased his oxygen carrying capacity by close to 16%
Rider B increased his by 10%
All else remaining equal (heart size, heart rate etc.) rider A has gained more.
Now all of this is not scientific and I am not claiming to be a scientist. It's based on what I've read over the years and my understanding of it. If you or someone else has a better explanation or a counter-explanation to all of this, please chime in.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> You assumed that they were all on the same program. I think that's a baseless assumption. I'd like to know where you're getting it from. I understand that there's no news story saying such a thing, but I imagine that there is at least some rumor or innuendo leading you to believe this, right? So back it up with something...



It is a gosh darn ASSUMPTION. I can also assume that one football team will triumph over another etc etc etc etc. Wow. An "educated guess" is another term for it. I never confessed to "knowing" anything here. Get it thru your thick skull man..

Here is my THOUGHT process. Again, this is an educated guess. I could be WRONG.

1. It is very helpful to have outstanding domestiques by your side and on your team.

2. IF Lance had access to something that makes HIM outstanding, and POSSIBLY (stress the word possibly here OK?) undetectable, they why the heck not SHARE this magic with the rest of the friggen' team that is there to make sure LA wins?? (rhetorical question)

Am I taking crazy pills? Must you keep digging at me...give it a rest. I assume LA doped, like many others assume. That is baseless too I guess....


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Let me try to answer the 2nd part first.
> I do believe the investigation is whether Lance incited others in getting those substances and how he may have facilitated their acquisition. Not whether he consumed or not.
> Let me explain how he could've incited someone.
> a) Hold a gun to someone's head <-- We can agree that this is highly unlikely
> ...


We are getting off topic here and some members may freak out....just to warn you. It is highly unappreciated by some 

1. The whole idea of joining a team under the impression that you will be asked to dope along with the champ and feeling obligated to say yes, as a grown adult, is silly. These are adult pro cyclists. They are more than aware of the doping that exists in the sport. Nobody forces anyone to take anything. Unless LA injects his teammates while they are sleeping w/o their approval, he is guilty of what....OFFERING them dope? How do we know that the director is not the one offering anyways....I could care less who OFFERS who what. They are friggen' adults, not children.

2. I have no idea if what you are saying is accurate physiologically. This is the first I have heard of one rider "reacting better" or whatever to the same PED as another pro.

Again....IF what you are saying is true physiologically, then are you suggesting that LA should be punished MORE because his body reacted better than the other teammates' who had the EXACT same DESIRE/GOAL and were disappointed to find that their bodies did not react as well to the drug as Lance's body did?

If "yes" is your answer, then we clearly disagree. If they did have the same intentions, then they are EQUALLY guilty in my book. I don't care if Lance profited more as a result of his body "reacting better" to the PEDs than the other pros who would have desperately loved to be in Lance's shoes during those 7 "wins".


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> Unless LA injects his teammates while they are sleeping w/o their approval, he is guilty of what....OFFERING them dope?


I think there is a word for people doing that. Now if only I could remember it.....


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> We are getting off topic here and some members may freak out....just to warn you. It is highly unappreciated by some
> 
> 1. The whole idea of joining a team under the impression that you will be asked to dope along with the champ and feeling obligated to say yes, as a grown adult, is silly. These are adult pro cyclists. They are more than aware of the doping that exists in the sport. Nobody forces anyone to take anything. Unless LA injects his teammates while they are sleeping w/o their approval, he is guilty of what....OFFERING them dope? How do we know that the director is not the one offering anyways....I could care less who OFFERS who what. They are friggen' adults, not children.
> 
> ...


Is it Lance who suggested/offered the dope and not Johan, or Tailwind Sports management? Well I guess that is what this investigation is about.
_They are friggen' adults, not children_. True but many of them are also pro-cyclists with not much more to add to their CV's. Their options are:
a) Take the high road and refuse: So in the late 90's early 21st century they may hope to finish many stages in the groupetto and then be out of a job because they are no good to the team leader.
b) Ride at the front of the peloton, protecting the leader, share the spoils of victory and sign a contract for another year. (In the case of Floyd and Levi sign a contract with another team as leader).

As far as two different human beings reacting differently to the same amount of "medication" is that really that difficult to understand?
Here's a little thought experiment you can perform. If both of us gulp down a pitcher of beer, I may fall flat on my face vommiting while you may ask for a second or vice-versa. That's two different humans, reacting differently to a chemical (alcohol). Is it plausible?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> It is a gosh darn ASSUMPTION. I can also assume that one football team will triumph over another etc etc etc etc. Wow. An "educated guess" is another term for it. I never confessed to "knowing" anything here. Get it thru your thick skull man..
> 
> Here is my THOUGHT process. Again, this is an educated guess. I could be WRONG.
> 
> ...


Let's assume Lance is on the sauce, and it's the good stuff as he's beating other top guys that are on the sauce too, and he's happily sharing his secrets with his teammates. If that's the case, then why did riders like Landis, Hamilton, Boonen, Vandevelde, Leipheimer, and Hesjedal arguably have better results after they left Lance's side? Did they go to teams that had much better doping programs, but were somehow unable to create a TdF winner? Or maybe Lance didn't want to share his secrets with any competitors, which is why it's rumored that he had an exclusive contract with Ferrari.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Let's assume Lance is on the sauce, and it's the good stuff as he's beating other top guys that are on the sauce too, and he's happily sharing his secrets with his teammates. If that's the case, then why did riders like Landis, Hamilton, Boonen, Vandevelde, Leipheimer, and Hesjedal arguably have better results after they left Lance's side? Did they go to teams that had much better doping programs, but were somehow unable to create a TdF winner? Or maybe Lance didn't want to share his secrets with any competitors, which is why it's rumored that he had an exclusive contract with Ferrari.



Some say Lance "forces" his grown up adult and fairly mature teammates to take drugs. Some even go as far as implying that we should by sympathetic towards the poor son of a guns like Levi that "have no other option but to take those darn PEDs from Lance the mob boss" or end up homeless or whatever.....GIVE ME A BREAK! Now, apparently he "forces" these adult men to take less effective drugs than his very own "special secret supply". Assumptions. Pot, meet...well you know... What the heck does "exclusive contract" mean EXACTLY. Did LA sign an agreement with M. Ferrari that said he was not allowed to share what he was using? Do you know for sure OR are you assuming again?

Johan must have not wanted the domestiques to perform too well. Also, no rider has ever improved as their careers matured? That would be an absurd thought correct? When some riders progress from super domestique to team leader for another squad, I guess you could say that they "arguably" have better results. This sort of thing happens when riders leave teams for other teams also...not just leaving Lance's team. Who knows, Renshaw might win a few TdF sprints etc in the future because he will finally have access to the "special" PEDs that Cav uses but won't share....funny funny....

Sorry to have "changed the argument", but AGAIN I am addressing YOUR claims/ASSUMPTIONS. Maybe I should just ignore it to prevent some other members from losing it. Could you imagine a forum where EVERYTHING off topic got ignored? (rhetorical question again....don't answer that...) Some of the most useful/interesting ideas/thoughts result from someone's off topic comment or question.....it happens...it is a forum..

I clearly understand that I have strong opinions. The e-sharks will predictably begin to circle as a result..


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Is it Lance who suggested/offered the dope and not Johan, or Tailwind Sports management? Well I guess that is what this investigation is about.
> _They are friggen' adults, not children_. True but many of them are also pro-cyclists with not much more to add to their CV's. Their options are:
> a) Take the high road and refuse: So in the late 90's early 21st century they may hope to finish many stages in the groupetto and then be out of a job because they are no good to the team leader.
> b) Ride at the front of the peloton, protecting the leader, share the spoils of victory and sign a contract for another year. (In the case of Floyd and Levi sign a contract with another team as leader).
> ...


Is the beer vs. EPO thing valid? I really don't know. Please address this question that I keep asking you.

Question: Do you feel that Lance should be punished more severely/have more anger and disgust aimed his way because he happened to "react more positively" (as you assume) to the exact same PEDs his teammates may have been taking, when his teammates may have had the exact same desires/goals?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

den bakker said:


> I think there is a word for people doing that. Now if only I could remember it.....



Now that is actually funny Injecting a needle, not... get your mind out of the gutter..haha


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> Some say Lance "forces" his grown up adult and fairly mature teammates to take drugs. Some even go as far as implying that we should by sympathetic towards the poor son of a guns like Levi that "have no other option but to take those darn PEDs from Lance the mob boss" or end up homeless or whatever.....GIVE ME A BREAK! Now, apparently he "forces" these adult men to take less effective drugs than his very own "special secret supply". Assumptions. Pot, meet...well you know... What the heck does "exclusive contract" mean EXACTLY. Did LA sign an agreement with M. Ferrari that said he was not allowed to share what he was using? Do you know for sure OR are you assuming again?
> 
> Johan must have not wanted the domestiques to perform too well. Also, no rider has ever improved as their careers matured? That would be an absurd thought correct? When some riders progress from super domestique to team leader for another squad, I guess you could say that they "arguably" have better results. This sort of thing happens when riders leave teams for other teams also...not just leaving Lance's team. Who knows, Renshaw might win a few TdF sprints etc in the future because he will finally have access to the "special" PEDs that Cav uses but won't share....funny funny....
> 
> ...


I just want to quote this and say...huh?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I just want to quote this and say...huh?


How about this quote? "This not so hard."  Clever way of having no response there SilasCl...haha. I expect more from someone who fancies themselves in a presidential position...just kidding... Having said that, I guess that I should "go bykryd" instead of looking like a moreon here aguing on the intrewebz with e-philosophers/e-litigators/e-ufc competitors/e-professors/e-presidents/e-college graduates/e-cyclists/e-pharmacists/e-doctors/e-nutritionists and e-anything else..

I am e-done for now.... I feel e-loco for attempting to explain to you etc that essentially 1 + 1 = 2. Yes, I am an e-mathmatician among everything else "e". Wait...am I assuming the mathy math of 1 + 1 = 2?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Is the beer vs. EPO thing valid? I really don't know. Please address this question that I keep asking you.
> 
> Question: Do you feel that Lance should be punished more severely/have more anger and disgust aimed his way because he happened to "react more positively" (as you assume) to the exact same PEDs his teammates may have been taking, when his teammates may have had the exact same desires/goals?


Yes he should be punished even more severely if proven that he incited and/or facilitated the use of PEDs using federal money. 

As far as the severity of anger and disgust thrown towards poor little Lance's direction, it's all a matter of personal feelings of each and every RBR member. Before you use this last sentence of mine as proof of our vendetta against LA, because of his winner status, go back and check some of the older threads concerning Floyd, Tyler, Vino, Alejandro and many others. I think you will find quite a bit of anger and disgust thrown in their direction.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG...if you are not already a politician, you may want to consider it with the following response to my clear question. I THINK it was you that made the statement that implied that Lance "reacted better" to the PEDs than his teammates did, therefore necessitating a more severe punishment....

Here it is again:

Question: "Do you feel that Lance should be punished more severely/have more anger and disgust aimed his way because he happened to "react more positively" (as you assume) to the exact same PEDs his teammates may have been taking, when his teammates may have had the exact same desires/goals?"


Your Answer: "Yes he should be punished even more severely if proven that he incited and/or facilitated the use of PEDs using federal money."

What?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> MG...if you are not already a politician, you may want to consider it with the following response to my clear question. I THINK it was you that made the statement that implied that Lance "reacted better" to the PEDs than his teammates did, therefore necessitating a more severe punishment....
> 
> Here it is again:
> 
> ...


Here’s a little timeline of our discussion, hoping it will clear things up.



rydbyk said:


> Essentially what you are saying is that Lance is more guilty because he happened to be more talented. So ridiculous. This is funny.


I said: _Actually some would argue that Lance wasn't necessarily the more talented but that he reacted better to the injections._
It was side topic but an assumption you made nonetheless. So I was responding to that.




rydbyk said:


> Question: Do you feel that Lance should be punished more severely/have more anger and disgust aimed his way because he happened to "react more positively" (as you assume) to the exact same PEDs his teammates may have been taking, when his teammates may have had the exact same desires/goals?


I said: _Yes he should be punished even more severely if proven that he incited and/or facilitated the use of PEDs using federal money._
I thought my answer was clear. The allegation is that Lance incited/encouraged others to dope. If this is proven in court he may face jail time. Far more severe than he not riding professionally ever again.
If however the allegation is that Lance doped to win 7TdFs in a row and it is proven in court, should he be punished more severely than others? My answer is no. He should get the standard 2 year suspension and his results should be wiped out based on the statute of limitations (is it 7 years?) 
But the allegation isn’t did Lance dope, now is it? I guess we may have to wait for official charges to be brought forward. 

Secondly, I am not alone in assuming that different riders react differently to the same drug. You are assuming that Lance and the rest of the peloton clean will still end up in Lance winning 7 TdFs because, according to you, he is the more talented rider. I just pointed out that this is not necessarily the case. I was hoping my beer example could’ve helped you understand. It didn’t so let’s leave it at that.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> Now that is actually funny Injecting a needle, not... get your mind out of the gutter..haha


actually the word is drug dealer or drug distributor now that I think about it.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Question: Do you feel that Lance should be punished more severely/have more anger and disgust aimed his way because he happened to "react more positively" (as you assume) to the exact same PEDs his teammates may have been taking, when his teammates may have had the exact same desires/goals?

I said: Yes he should be punished even more severely if proven that he incited and/or facilitated the use of PEDs using federal money.

I thought my answer was clear.

______________________________

Not really....but that is ok..

So...I guess Lance is just plain lucky that his body "reacted better" to the doping than his teammates. He must have reacted the very very best to have won 7X. According to your theory, I wonder if possibly (said this before) Cav reacts better to his PEDs than Renshaw. Of course, assuming that Cav is on the juicy juice also....which he may not be..

Geez...If Renshaw had reacted better, Cav would be his lead out man...again, assuming that your theory is correct and Cav and Renshaw are doping.....which they may not be..


----------



## lewdvig (Oct 4, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> Why not? Lance is getting all the attention here. Is it because Lance is more arrogant? Is it because he is more successful? Is it because he "forced" the other adults on the team to take PEDs? Is it because he set up a Cancer Foundation? Is it because he sells "false hope".?
> 
> This whole thing is annoying. LA should not get a "free pass", but wow...lots of us sure want to see HIM fall. I don't hear a whole bunch about Levi and gang..


Yeah, I don't get the hate either. But Lance does make it easy for people to have strong feelings about him.

IMO:

1. By using whatever he used, Lance leveled the playing field - in the 1995 or 96 tour Lance was crushed by Indurain in a 80km TT. In the interview afterwards he pretty much said Indurain was inhuman and wondered how he could be beat. 

2. Lance has raised a ton of cash for cancer research and got fat americans off their butts and onto bikes. The net result of whatever he did is positive. 

3. Postal monies resulted in incredible free advertising. They got insane value for every penny spent.

Where is the real crime here?


----------

