# Why Johan should never work in the sport again



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...-one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



> Two days after the race ended, David Zabriskie — a five-time national time-trial champion and one of Armstrong’s former teammates — showed up on the doorstep of the federal courthouse in Los Angeles, finally ready to tell his story. He had requested that Tygart be in the room — he was one of two riders who did so — and what Tygart heard was chilling.





> “What Johan did to me, I consider it a form of abuse because it was so horrible and affected me for the rest of my life,” Zabriskie said, choking up. “I know I was the first person to tell my story because Johan, he doesn’t need to be around young cyclists.”





> They weren’t selling them immunity,


Excellent article


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

"The day he first used the banned blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO, he said, Johan Bruyneel — the Postal Service team director and longtime Armstrong confidant — had told him that “everyone is doing it.” Hearing that had crushed him."


All the top riders weren't doing it???????
Surely you jest.....Of course they were.
Name a top rider, at the time that wasn't.

Was Zabriskie so weak willed that he couldn't say no??.....Or was he so greedy for sucess, that he decided to go the last full measure??
How often do you hear criminals say...." They made me do it...........I couldn't help myself...........These was an Earthquake......Locusts,,,,,,,,,,,It wasn't faulf.......I swear to God".
.
.
.
.


----------



## superjesus (Jul 26, 2010)

Great article. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> "The day he first used the banned blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO, he said, Johan Bruyneel — the Postal Service team director and longtime Armstrong confidant — had told him that “everyone is doing it.” Hearing that had crushed him."
> 
> 
> All the top riders weren't doing it???????
> ...



LA and JB had an elaborate system designed to turn young, promising cyclists into fully doped pros. Part of that system was to reward those that go along and punish those who don't. I find it ironic that you criticize DZ when you both participating in that same system. He, the young talent led to dope to serve Lance and you as part of the gullible mob incited to discipline him if he doesn't.

He doped, he willingly testified (unlike Levi) and wanted the USADA in the room when he did. He is serving his suspension and will have this stain on his career forever. At least he is doing something to try to fix the problem. A lot more than any of us yapping on message boards.


----------



## Data_God (Oct 9, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...-one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was .... Thank you for the link.


Regards

Bill


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Thanks. Great article.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

what I find funny is so many of these guys got busted riding for other teams
as if escaping Johann would change a thing


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Enlightening article.

Anybody else read this and go 'ya think?':

_“I guess I have to apologize to Floyd for calling him a liar,” Barry said. “Because he was telling the truth the whole time.”_


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

With apologies to ol' Will S,

The USPS doping investigation's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Was Zabriskie so weak willed that he couldn't say no?


I'm still shocked that Zabriskie was so desperate to ride one year, he did for a $15,000 salary. I don't know what the right word is for that, but weak-willed doesn't seem apt.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> I'm still shocked that Zabriskie was so desperate to ride one year, he did for a $15,000 salary. I don't know what the right word is for that, but weak-willed doesn't seem apt.


To me that shows that he wanted to ride in Europe really badly, and that he was willing to sacrifice it all to ride.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Shocked? Really? Many young people are so desperate to get their foot in the door they work for nothing. They're called interns.
> 
> 
> The criminal regime that is the NCAA still enforces amateurism but profits immensely. :yikes:


The vast majority of NCAA sports are money losers. Only Mens football and mens basketball generate serious $$$.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

Well, at least, Z got a nicely successful business and career out of it


----------



## jpaschal01 (Jul 20, 2011)

Zabriski was so emotionally devastated by Johan and Lance that he made time to get on their team bus during Lance's comeback and film this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31OZLj0cqTQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Disturbing article. Not a surprise after reading the RD though.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

I'm about 100 pages into "The Secret Race" and this fits the pattern. Guys with little education and job skills beyond riding a bike, tired of getting their butts kicked, hoping to stay employed, being told that "everyone else is doing it" succumb pretty easily.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> See this about NCAA parasites.
> 
> The Shame of College Sports - Taylor Branch - The Atlantic
> 
> ...


Why are you against young black males earning a chance at a free education?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

88 rex said:


> Why are you against young black males earning a chance at a free education?


The opportunity is there, but there are a lot of time demands that affect classroom performance, even for those who are motivated to get a degree. Football puts huge demands on a student's time. There are those who succeed. Take JC Watts, for example. There wasn't a bigger scumbag in college sports than Barry Switzer. Watts had to learn a complex offense, and put in the hours demanded of him. But he also got a degree, went into business, and then had a successful career in politics, to the point where he was mentioned as a possible VP candidate for the GOP. 

The problem is that colleges recruit kids who they know have little chance of succeeding academically. They're just sides of beef. They fudge admission standards, steer them to Underwater Fire Prevention 101 type courses taught by compliant professors, and still many drop out short of a degree. I have first hand experience here---I attended a small, liberal arts college that happened to be a big time basketball school. I took an easy elective once in a course that I had a personal interest in--the History of Jazz. Half of the basketball team was in that class. During exams, I would have players on each side and behind me, basically copying my answers off my tests, with the professor standing facing the chalkboard the whole time. He even joked with me after the final, telling me that one player copied my name instead of putting his down.

If this crap was going on there, imagine how it was at Ole Miss and places like that.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> This from the "why do you love cancer and hate excellence" brigade. Thanks for the :lol:
> 
> Beneath meriting a response!


Awesome! Not only do you think my post didn't deserve a response, you took the time to edit your initial response to add more to your non-response. 2 responses of non-response in 1 poast. Win!

Edited to add: Triple bonus of a non-merited response....the red chicklet with a fun comment too.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

jpaschal01 said:


> Zabriski was so emotionally devastated by Johan and Lance that he made time to get on their team bus during Lance's comeback and film this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31OZLj0cqTQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player


You can just _Feel _ his heartbreak....


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

mpre53 said:


> The opportunity is there, but there are a lot of time demands that affect classroom performance, even for those who are motivated to get a degree. Football puts huge demands on a student's time. There are those who succeed. Take JC Watts, for example. There wasn't a bigger scumbag in college sports than Barry Switzer. Watts had to learn a complex offense, and put in the hours demanded of him. But he also got a degree, went into business, and then had a successful career in politics, to the point where he was mentioned as a possible VP candidate for the GOP.
> 
> The problem is that colleges recruit kids who they know have little chance of succeeding academically. They're just sides of beef. They fudge admission standards, steer them to Underwater Fire Prevention 101 type courses taught by compliant professors, and still many drop out short of a degree. I have first hand experience here---I attended a small, liberal arts college that happened to be a big time basketball school. I took an easy elective once in a course that I had a personal interest in--the History of Jazz. Half of the basketball team was in that class. During exams, I would have players on each side and behind me, basically copying my answers off my tests, with the professor standing facing the chalkboard the whole time. He even joked with me after the final, telling me that one player copied my name instead of putting his down.
> 
> If this crap was going on there, imagine how it was at Ole Miss and places like that.


So who's to blame?? I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who has the road smoothed for them to acquire a degree. Sure, they have time requirements, but that's part of the gig for getting a free ride. Most people pay for school.....and work....and study....and come out of school loaded with debt. These student athletes can't get mad at a system that has provided them with a golden opportunity. You want it, it's yours, you just have to work your butt off for it.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Zabriskie needs to HTFU.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> See this about NCAA parasites.
> 
> The Shame of College Sports - Taylor Branch - The Atlantic
> 
> ...


I read the whole article and I agree with you about the NCAA. But I am not sure what the point is about the fact that two sports (mens basketball and mens football) generate the overwhelming $$$ that is just reality. I do think that athletes in college should be allowed stipends and derive some benefits not available to regular students, but I would worry that in that situation it would create haves and have nots (even more than we have right now).


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Athletes should be ALLOWED stipends? Again, wtf is that? Don't people market their skills for a remuneration the market for those skills will bear? You're worried about the haves and have nots? Hopefully you're voting for liberals not that there are any left.


Given that the vast number of athletes in college are in non revenue sports and they are not allowed any special benefits a stipend is a way to compensate the football and basketball players. They should also have some form of extended health benefits with a catastrophic coverage provision. 

Keep in mind that many, many of the schools that these athletes are attending cost a decent amount of money, anyone on a scholarship is really getting paid a decent wage for an 18 yr old with just barely a high school diploma. 

I went to a Division III school, who had no scholarships or football, anyone in sports there did it because they liked it, not to be famous (similar to 99% of all NCAA athletes). Even at a Div III school we were treated the same in terms of outside money as any other NCAA athlete (I was a swimmer), the actual language was along the lines of "no stipends or advantages not available to regular students". That is the attitude of the NCAA. I don't believe that is correct, I think that a stipend is a way to pay football and basketball players for making money for the school (and subsidizing the other sports). 

This has gotten way off topic; also in Europe they have schools that emphasize sports, and riders like Tom Boonen were put into those schools as kids. Is that a form of slavery or vocational training?


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> They're 18? So what? How old is Justin Bieber? Who are you or who is anyone else to decide how much someone is worth?
> 
> Reggie Bush was obviously worth at least the 100K some booster gave him. How about Cam Newton?


Reggie had a full ride to USC which is worth about 40k a year, plus he got the under the table payments (actually from an agent) as well as other improper benefits such as a house for his parents. 

Had he tried to ply his trade on the open market he most likely would NOT have gotten a big contract from an NFL team and would have had to toil for far less money in Canada. That rate would be set by the market for football players.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> And that's what I said when I mentioned his scholarship being worth $150k. As for "improper" benefits, that language alone is screwy. The NCAA decides this nonsense of impropriety? You did say you read the article? Wth are these coaches making off these kids and how much are companies like Nike making and paying to get their logos all over the place?
> 
> As for open market, there is no open market which is the problem. Players can't come directly out of HS which is a restraint of trade. Why not?
> 
> I remember a lot of people getting all up in arms about LA's rights being violated but these athletes can't ply their trades?


I think that we are on the same page here, I don't like the system in place for football and basketball players who cannot get paid for playing for big football schools. 

And yes the NCAA promotes the nitwitery of improper benefits, DIV III (where I swam) and in Div 1 they are really hard core about it; my brothers scholarship (Division 1 swimming at a major football power) had all sorts of NCAA restrictions on it.

As for high schoolers going directly pro, there is a market for basketball players, they are more than welcome to skip college or play one year and then go. the NFL for whatever reason decided to leverage the college system as a developmental league and the school presidents played along. The NFL also has rules (that they decided on) that require 3 seasons between a players high school graduation and their first professional game. If you want to work for the NFL you play by their rules.

As for Lance, he was treated more than fairly.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

jorgy said:


> Enlightening article.
> 
> Anybody else read this and go 'ya think?':
> 
> _“I guess I have to apologize to Floyd for calling him a liar,” Barry said. “Because he was telling the truth the whole time.”_


I seem to remember some heated debates on FB in which you towed the LA line. More specifically, attacking Armstrong's detractors. Betsy Andreu was nuts, so-and-so has an axe to grind, etc, etc.

Does this mean you're backing off that stance?


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

DrRoebuck said:


> I seem to remember some heated debates on FB in which you towed the LA line. More specifically, attacking Armstrong's detractors. Betsy Andreu was nuts, so-and-so has an axe to grind, etc, etc.
> 
> Does this mean you're backing off that stance?


I've always maintained that I think Armstrong doped. And I've never thought he was a particularly nice person.

I still question aspects of the investigation and 'evidence.' I did like reading how the investigation progressed, though. I don't know whether to pity or be disgusted by riders like Zabriskie (a rider I've always liked even though I figured he doped), who was unable to put on his big boy pants when it really counted, i.e., before he doped.

Even if one thinks Betsy Andreu is telling the truth, she doesn't flatter herself by her behavior. That is, for years and years talking to the media about what she heard in some hospital conference room. Yep, she has an axe to grind. She thinks poor Frankie wouldn't have doped if Armstrong hadn't made him. Her tenacity would be admirable if she was hounding a murderer or rapist. Given she's not, I think she does come across badly.

It's like when a guy I work with and I joke about my department at work and the machinations and political maneuvering our colleagues attempt to do. For what? What is essentially an academic popsicle stand. And among crimes to hound people over, doping--which allowed her own husband to prosper in cycling--is a popsicle-level crime.

It really is possible for one to think Armstrong 1) doped and 2) is an ******* yet still think the process was flawed. That's been my position the whole time, which don't think constitutes towing the LA line.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

jorgy said:


> I've always maintained that I think Armstrong doped. And I've never thought he was a particularly nice person.
> 
> I still question aspects of the investigation and 'evidence.' I did like reading how the investigation progressed, though. I don't know whether to pity or be disgusted by riders like Zabriskie (a rider I've always liked even though I figured he doped), who was unable to put on his big boy pants when it really counted, i.e., before he doped.
> 
> ...


From what I can tell, Betsy was sought ... she didn't write op-eds or blogs about this stuff. When news would break, reporters, etc., sought her because she was outspoken about the issue. And considering the attacks with which Armstrong smeared her, I don't blame her one bit.

In fact, when people whine about USADA going after Armstrong and things that happened in the past (even though his 2009-10 blood passport problems are recent enough to warrant investigation), one of the justifying reasons is that it vindicates everyone Armstrong and his people have smeared and bullied in the past.

But speaking of not knowing whether to pity or be disgusted by ... Vaughters. From the Hamilton book and the USADA report, he comes across as someone who went along with the Postal doping program about as begrudgingly as possible, and bailed within a few years rather than ride the doping train to more glory. And he said no one at Garmin would lose their jobs if they came clean during the investigation. And he talked voluntarily. But he has said he had to wait until someone else (Landis) talked first.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Damn, you have a plantation mentality! Someone who has the road smoothed for them? These guys have a unique talent that people are willing to pay to see. The system has provided them with a golden opportunity? Huh? Have you ever heard of capitalism?


Using mpre53's example of cheating, I would say that is "smoothing the road" to a degree. No doubt they have a unique talent, that's why they are offered a free education. I don't have a problem with that. I also don't get mad when the football team generates millions of dollars for the school.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> Even if one thinks Betsy Andreu is telling the truth, she doesn't flatter herself by her behavior. That is, for years and years talking to the media about what she heard in some hospital conference room. Yep, she has an axe to grind. She thinks poor Frankie wouldn't have doped if Armstrong hadn't made him. Her tenacity would be admirable if she was hounding a murderer or rapist. Given she's not, I think she does come across badly.


So you would have sat by as Armstrong smeared you, crushed your husbands career, made you a target of threats, smears, and harassment? 

Betsy refused to commit perjury. For that she and her husband were relentlessly harassed. Good for her for standing up to a bully

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourcorners/video/20121015_4c_betsy_288p.mp4

Betsy was not the only person to be a target of his harassment
ABC News Videos & Live News Clips Online - ABC News...


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Let us not forget there was a rep from Oakley in that room also, who also heard what transpired. LeMond got her to admit to what she heard on tape. She perjured herself during her SCA deposition, and Armstrong's lawyers quickly stipulated that she gave false testimony when SCA's lawyer produced the tape. His use of testosterone prior to 1999 would not affect SCA's liability to pay the bonuses and would not have been an issue in the case, so there was no need to not stipulate.

Testosterone abuse is linked to testicular cancer, and it boggles the mind to believe that a competent oncologist would not ask a patient about its use. I am asked about drug/alcohol use every time that I consult a new physician. That information is privileged by law and also subject to HIPPA regulations.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

*They all need to go*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...-one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DZ and JB both cheats and should be banned from cycling for life as should any of the other cheaters from USPS. Personally, I don't think this article did DZ any favors and I found the tone somewhat condescending to a large group of people who've had tough upbringings yet are able to make the right choice in arguably much tougher situations. 
DZ's tough decision wasn't whether to sign up for the military and possibly get maimed or killed a few thousand miles from home. It wasn't whether to take a loved one off of life support. It was to cheat and steal at a job he could walk away from at any time. In light of the Sandusky trial, DZ's description of his abuse by JB would be laughable if it wasn't so distasteful. 

This purge is tough but all these guys have to go, not just Armstrong or JB. JV's insistence that these cheats have a story to tell is just more lying and manipulation to keep guys like him, Riis and their doper buddies in the sport.Sure they have a story, everyone does but there are people who do it right that have a story to tell also. Some guy who rode clean and struggled to feed his kids while thieves like JV, DZ, Hincapie, Leipheimer etc stole bread off the table has a compelling, true story of what it is to be victimized. Ex dopers blaming the system and holding management positions doesn't really send the message that the ends don't justify the means. Keep bringing these proven liars and cheats back and there will never be credibility in pro-cycling. 

JMO


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Chaz955i said:


> DZ and JB both cheats and should be banned from cycling for life as should any of the other cheaters from USPS. Personally, I don't think this article did DZ any favors and I found the tone somewhat condescending to a large group of people who've had tough upbringings yet are able to make the right choice in arguably much tougher situations.
> DZ's tough decision wasn't whether to sign up for the military and possibly get maimed or killed a few thousand miles from home. It wasn't whether to take a loved one off of life support. It was to cheat and steal at a job he could walk away from at any time. In light of the Sandusky trial, DZ's description of his abuse by JB would be laughable if it wasn't so distasteful.
> 
> This purge is tough but all these guys have to go, not just Armstrong or JB. JV's insistence that these cheats have a story to tell is just more lying and manipulation to keep guys like him, Riis and their doper buddies in the sport.Sure they have a story, everyone does but there are people who do it right that have a story to tell also. Some guy who rode clean and struggled to feed his kids while thieves like JV, DZ, Hincapie, Leipheimer etc stole bread off the table has a compelling, true story of what it is to be victimized. Ex dopers blaming the system and holding management positions doesn't really send the message that the ends don't justify the means. Keep bringing these proven liars and cheats back and there will never be credibility in pro-cycling.
> ...


I understand the emotion, but if it's that black-and-white, the decision isn't "to cheat or not to cheat", but "to talk or not to talk." Cheating will occur, and testing will never catch up. For the sport to have credibility, people need to be able to talk without completely destroying all chance at a livelihood. 

Punish them? Sure. Automatic blackball, without regard to contriteness or helpfulness in investigations? Emotionally appealing, but it's the life blood of the omerta. It creates the 'you can't rat me out without going down yourself' that kept Armstrong and Bruyneel in charge. 

Folks like Hamilton, that only confess after they've been busted and run out of appeals - they deserve much quarter. But folks like Z that come clean without any charges, subpoenas, or promises of immunity - IMO, that should have some consideration. Not scot-free, and I'd say the 6 months was light, but kicking them out isn't appropriate either. At a minimum, they deserve different than the 2+2 of a 'convicted' doper.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

danl1 said:


> I understand the emotion, but if it's that black-and-white, the decision isn't "to cheat or not to cheat", but "to talk or not to talk." Cheating will occur, and testing will never catch up. For the sport to have credibility, people need to be able to talk without completely destroying all chance at a livelihood.
> 
> Punish them? Sure. Automatic blackball, without regard to contriteness or helpfulness in investigations? Emotionally appealing, but it's the life blood of the omerta. It creates the 'you can't rat me out without going down yourself' that kept Armstrong and Bruyneel in charge.
> 
> Folks like Hamilton, that only confess after they've been busted and run out of appeals - they deserve much quarter. But folks like Z that come clean without any charges, subpoenas, or promises of immunity - IMO, that should have some consideration. Not scot-free, and I'd say the 6 months was light, but kicking them out isn't appropriate either. At a minimum, they deserve different than the 2+2 of a 'convicted' doper.


I respectfully disagree. They do have a chance at a livelihood, just outside of cycling. In my profession, I have a code of conduct that extends past the office. If I violate it I am out no questions asked with no chance of return. I made a choice to accept it as well as the consequences. My industry would not crumble and there wouldn't be forums of people arguing for my second chance. These cheats are a cancer to cycling pure and simple and it is clear from their own statements that many still don't grasp how many they have hurt beyond themselves. Just more lies and refusal to accept that they are 100% responsible for the choice they made. Maybe once up and comers realize racing isn't an entitlement and there isn't going to be a parade of apologists and ex-dopers making sure their fall has a soft landing they will take their choices a little more serious? The impact of seeing a person at the beginning of what appears to be a promising career being told, "pick another profession because you are done here, forever" must have some impact.

Racing isn't going anywhere either way. Just need to make a choice if we want it to be respected or a joke sport that wrings its hands as dopers steal from competitors, sponsors etc. What you are saying about omerta and some form of amnesty for those who proactively spoke up and got the ball rolling certainly has merit but some of the sentiment seems to stem from a fear of taking a hard line, indicating to me deep down some people are afraid there would be virtually nobody racing if we were able to catch 100% of the racers currently cheating. If they aren't being obvious about it and are nice we will just ignore it. Ten- twelve years from now ....same thing. surprise surprise 

Cycling is a great sport with amazing stories. Cheats like these just destroy all of that.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I at first was upset upon learning how traumatized DZ was over being "forced" to dope by USPS. Everyone must have gone thru therapy because everyone looks Okee-dokey here in this video:






DZNuts: Lance, Dave and Levi talking about Dave's DZNuts during the 2009 Giro - YouTube


----------

