# Sports Illustrated



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Preview of tomorrows watered down article
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/01/18/lance.armstrong/index.html?eref=sihp


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Meh..*

"If a court finds that Armstrong won his titles while taking performance-enhancing drugs, his entourage may come to be known as the domestiques of the saddest deception in sports history."

Yeh...I don't know about that We as "fans" are naive to think the winners aren't on something illegal. When they get "caught" we hate them. Is it because they got caught? If they can escape the tests, we turn a blind eye sort of thing and put them up on pedestals.

Weird stuff.

Oh...and if they handle themselves well once convicted, then we love them again.... no harm done.

If they act dooshy, then we write them off as losers.....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

I wonder what revelations were in the article before it was allegedly watered down. This is pretty strong stuff.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> I wonder what revelations were in the article before it was allegedly watered down. This is pretty strong stuff.



Hookers and blow.

It all comes back to hookers and blow.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> Hooker and blow.
> 
> It all comes back to hookers and blow.


That's what I'm reading elsewhere, from the usual reliable sources, but I always prefer to see these things outside of a forum before I put much faith in them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/1/index.htm

complete article


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

More of the same old thing.... Somebody wake me up when charges are actually filed, someone gets cuffed, or sanctioned in some way......


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

armstrong da biggest liar


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

This article puts some focus on alleged testosterone PED abuse by Armstrong in the mid 90's. This has made me think about a link between testosterone PED's and his cancer diagnosis. I know that there may be no basis for making this jump, but for myself, It's something I have never considered and am now wondering about.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

* Armstrong hired a UCLA anti-doping lab to monitor his drug testing regimen after returning to the sport in 2009. A former employee of the lab says the director is Lance's "greatest admirer."

* That same lab had three of Armstrong's test samples from the 1990's that tested well above normal levels for testosterone-epitestosterone, but because they could not be confirmed by a second sample they were listed as negative.

* Stephen Swart, a teammate of Armstrong's in the 1990s, says "Armstrong was the "instigator" of the team's decision to start taking EPO, though he claims he never saw Armstrong inject EPO or give it to anyone else.

* Swart does claim that he his teammates (including Armstrong) regularly tested their hemacrit level and Armstrong's was once "54 or 56." A positive test at that level would have resulted in a 15-day ban.

* Mike Anderson, a former bike mechanic of Armstrong's, claimed he once saw a box labeled "Andro" in Armstrong's apartment.

* Anderson also claimed that he helped with a ruse to fool anti-doping testers who had showed up at Armstrong's house when he was not here. (Athletes in testing program are required to report their whereabouts at all times.)

* Betsy Andreu, the wife of Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu, claimed in a sworn deposition that she witnessed Armstrong being asked by his doctors if he had ever taken performance enhancing drugs. She says Armstrong replied, "Yes," and listed "EPO, growth hormone, cortisone, steroids, and testosterone."

* Stephanie McIlvain, an Oakley marketing rep and friend of Armstrong's, also witnessed that conversation and refuted Andreu's claim in court. However, cyclist Greg LeMond has a taped phone conversation with McIlvain, where she appears to confirm it.

* Two of Armstrong's teammates on the 1990 U.S. Junior cycling team said coaches administered steroids to them directly.

* An arrest of one of Armstrong's former Radio Shack teammates uncovered emails and texts that linked Armstrong to Michele Ferrari, a controversial doctor who has publicly supported use of EPO (A blood doping drug.) The contacts are from 2009, though Armstrong claimed to sever all ties with Ferrari in 2004.

* Floyd Landis claims that Armstrong's use of private planes allowed him to easily bypass customs, even when carrying drugs in his luggage.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ds-lance-armstrong-story-2011-1#ixzz1BUeOjhIi


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*From the "other side" and the crazy guy......*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-sports-illustrated-details

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/floyd-landis-calls-for-legalised-doping


- Anyone need anything more from FL? Unreal....


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

Doesn't this basically boil down to:

-Whether you think Lance got lucky, or took substances that were not tested prior to ~2001
-Whether you think Lance blood packed post 2001, and whether you think that is "doping" or not?

If lance did use pharmaceuticals past 2001 he was either really dumb, paid off the labs, or both. Lucky doesn't even apply.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Just finished reading the entire article... very interesting and yes new details indeed... Makes me really wonder what kind of information Novitzky is uncovering; if this is what is in the article and a watered down version at that..


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

The "watered down" part most people think had to do with Livestrong, not Armstrong.


----------



## thehook (Mar 14, 2006)

I just would like to ad. That one of the authors of this article is Selena Roberts. She is famous or should I say infamous. For the hack job she did on those kids from Duke Lacrosse. 

She was a guest on a morning sports radio show in New York. To discuss her A-Rod book. When asked by the hosts about the machete she took to the lacrosse players names and reputations she could not bring herself to apologize. And got quite pissed. So if she is at it again. I would not be suprised

Question for the witch? Where do the kids from duke go to get there good name and reputations back? You know the one you tried to ruin?

Believe Lance or not. It is your choice. But full disclosure is in order. For Selena Roberts.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DMFT said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-sports-illustrated-details
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/floyd-landis-calls-for-legalised-doping
> 
> ...


Floyd and cycling are about a decade too late to go down that path. It probably would have been the smart thing to do back when the endemic doping within cycling started coming to the public's attention.

Once UCI subjected cycling to WADA the sport's goose was cooked.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

yes, Roberts, like most of the media, are Dou$hes!!

just out to sell their snake oil, no matter the cost nor your reputation..

will wait for "due process" to occur before rushing to judgement...


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

32and3cross said:


> Hookers and blow.
> 
> It all comes back to hookers and blow.


Charlie Sheen was a Pro cyclist??


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

*floyd landis*

was 'real gains'


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/01/drug-of-2011-hemassist-and-armstrong.html

This would explain, the whole I have been tested more than any other athlete crap. Its because they dont have a test for this.

For the people that doubt the SI article, you can bet that SI can backup everything they say or they would stay silent. LA has a team of lawyers that sues anyone that speaks against him. No way TimeWarner's legal department would let this publish without some serious proof.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

gh1 said:


> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/01/drug-of-2011-hemassist-and-armstrong.html
> 
> This would explain, the whole I have been tested more than any other athlete crap. Its because they dont have a test for this.
> 
> For the people that doubt the SI article, you can bet that SI can backup everything they say or they would stay silent. LA has a team of lawyers that sues anyone that speaks against him. No way TimeWarner's legal department would let this publish without some serious proof.


I'd bet lance's other nut that the stuff about Popo can not be backed up.
If they found anything in that raid he would be done up for it. The Italians are talking about doing up Pettachi for much less than that. They would be much less kind to a Ukrainian than one of their own.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I too had that thought about Popo. Also, the Swiss airport story ought to be the easiest of all to confirm, unless there are oodles of cycling teams flying in on private jets with drugs.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Dissappointed in SI. Very thin allegations, not to mention a jumbled mess of writing. As holes get blown in this article (Hemassist claim is already being debunked), LA is going to look better and SI is going to look worse.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Backing up davidka....*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/experts-call-armstrong-hemassist-connection-unlikely

- This is like watching a Tennis match.
Serve returned! 

Great thread "Dr."


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DMFT said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/experts-call-armstrong-hemassist-connection-unlikely


This was already addresses in the SI article. They discuss that given what is known now, it looks like hemassist is not effective, but that's irrelevant. What matters is at the time of the suspected use, it could have looked like an effective product. But as far as smokescreens go, this isn't a bad one.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

It's funny how this whole LA saga is suddenly "big news" on the radio shows... Why not speak of it 3 months ago?


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

malanb said:


> armstrong da biggest liar


The biggest liar with 7 TdF victories.

All you Lance haters are like nutjobs at a Tea Party rally...and Dr. Falsetti is your Sarah Palin.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

asgelle said:


> This was already addresses in the SI article. They discuss that given what is known now, it looks like hemassist is not effective, but that's irrelevant. What matters is at the time of the suspected use, it could have looked like an effective product. But as far as smokescreens go, this isn't a bad one.


Not to mention the simple fact that a whole lot of riders have been caught using drugs that aren't suppose to do anything for endurance performance. Clearly if riders think or are told something works they will take it whether or not there is any scientific evidence it works or even the evidence suggests it doesn't.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

lastchild said:


> The biggest liar with 7 TdF victories.
> 
> All you Lance haters are like nutjobs at a Tea Party rally...and Dr. Falsetti is your Sarah Palin.


So can someone point me to the one piece of evidence from SI article that is NOT in dispute? Not something vague that "will come out" in 6 months, not he said-he said, but a factual statement that can be proven or disproven?

HemAssist part of the story seems to be easily contradicted by experts. Popo denies the claim of found drugs in his apartment - and I agree with other posters, it would have been immediately a much bigger (HUGE!) story if they did find something. Swiss border patrol story is not easily verifiable, and what is there to verify - that border patrol agent saw a bag of pills that he decided were vitamins?

I mean, is it really impossible to dig up some *solid* evidence? Some sort of paper trail? Bank statements? Schedules, paperwork, phone logs, etc.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> HemAssist part of the story seems to be easily contradicted by experts


The only thing relevant about HemAssist is illegal possession. What type of expert are you looking for to shed light on this? I'll say it again, whether or not it is effective is a smoke screen.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

55x11 said:


> So can someone point me to the one piece of evidence from SI article that is NOT in dispute? Not something vague that "will come out" in 6 months, not he said-he said, but a factual statement that can be proven or disproven?
> 
> HemAssist part of the story seems to be easily contradicted by experts. Popo denies the claim of found drugs in his apartment - and I agree with other posters, it would have been immediately a much bigger (HUGE!) story if they did find something.* Swiss border patrol story is not easily verifiable, and what is there to verify - that border patrol agent saw a bag of pills that he decided were vitamins?*
> 
> I mean, is it really impossible to dig up some *solid* evidence? Some sort of paper trail? Bank statements? Schedules, paperwork, phone logs, etc.


The Swiss incident had multiple sources. Landis was not the only source. Others on the plane confirmed, including the guy who convinced the agents they were vitamins.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

asgelle said:


> This was already addresses in the SI article. They discuss that given what is known now, it looks like hemassist is not effective, but that's irrelevant. What matters is at the time of the suspected use, it could have looked like an effective product. But as far as smokescreens go, this isn't a bad one.


The Hemassist class of drugs had some serious side effects, but it's important to look at how they were used in the clinical trials versus how an athlete might abuse them. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12227646?dopt=Abstract

In this case, they used the drug to assist patients undergoing surgery. "_Estimated blood loss was 27 +/- 13 ml/kg and 31 +/- 15 ml/kg in the control and DCLHb groups, respectively. _

If you assume the average body weight of a human is 70kg, that means this was used on surgery patients who lost between 11890 and 2170 ml of blood. The total blood volume for a 70kg human is about 3000 ml, so this is significant blood loss we are talking about here. Patients were dosed with *750ml* of Hemasist. 

So, basically you can't really compare the effectiveness and/or side effects from the clinical trials with what a cyclist might use. Likely, like EPO, they would be using small amounts to either boost performance or combat the loss of hematocrit over the course of a grueling 3-week race. 

Apples and oranges.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

55x11 said:


> So can someone point me to the one piece of evidence from SI article that is NOT in dispute? Not something vague that "will come out" in 6 months, not he said-he said, but a factual statement that can be proven or disproven?
> 
> HemAssist part of the story seems to be easily contradicted by experts. Popo denies the claim of found drugs in his apartment - and I agree with other posters, it would have been immediately a much bigger (HUGE!) story if they did find something. Swiss border patrol story is not easily verifiable, and what is there to verify - that border patrol agent saw a bag of pills that he decided were vitamins?
> 
> I mean, is it really impossible to dig up some *solid* evidence? Some sort of paper trail? Bank statements? Schedules, paperwork, phone logs, etc.


By this standard, unless there is a confession, no one has been shown to be a murderer. Eyewitness testimony is almost always contradicted by the accused. Does that make it less accurate?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Hookers and blow? You know I don't care that LA doped, though his "didn't take drugs" lies rather than the conventional "didn't cheat anyone" response bugs me, but if he's getting Charlie Sheen's sloppy seconds I will totally lose any and all respect for him. ;-P


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

txzen said:


> The Hemassist class of drugs had some serious side effects, but it's important to look at how they were used in the clinical trials versus how an athlete might abuse them.


Actually that's not important at all. All that matters is did someone possess, transport, or sell a drug illegally. How that drug may have been used (if at all) is irrelevant.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

if he did the olsen twins, he'd do anything


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm surprised by folks who are not convinced after reading the SI article. The issue is not whether any one single piece of evidence proves, in and of itself, that Armstrong doped and has by lying all these years and continues to lie. It is the sum of the evidence.

I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces. 

Would I believe Landis alone, if that was the only evidence? No way. 

But Frankie Andreau's wife? 
And Frankie Andreau?
And the guy from New Zealand?
And the looong list of key U.S. Postal riders who have been busted for doping in their careers? (I'm not going to go compile a long list here, there are other threads on it, but it includes Landis and Hamilton and many others and lots of them have testified under oath at this point in front of a grand jury).
And Armstrong's former confidence and mechanic (Anderson)?
And the taped conversation with Mclvain by Lemond (I'm not commenting on the ethical problems with LeMond's taping of that conversation, or the admissibility of it, but the tape is out there)?
The association with Dr. Ferrarri?

I'm just hitting some of the highlights. As one poster aptly put it, you get to a point where believing that Armstrong didn't dope is like people who still believe the earth is flat. We are now there with all the evidence against him.

Man, I don't hate Armstrong. It was great watching him compete and win. He is a tremendous athlete and competitor despite the fact he doped. But cycling is changing now and there is a real chance to change the culture of doping and get away from it. Armstrong has a chance to save face and help clean up cycling by fessing up to doping, pointing out the obvious (every elite rider on the podium was doping and you HAD to do it to compete during the EPO years), and saying it is time to clean it up. 

But what is he doing? He is still living a lie. 

I hope he isn't living that lie when he goes before the grand jury. Because he is going to find his ass in a jail cell like Marion Jones.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Gatorback said:


> I'm surprised by folks who are not convinced after reading the SI article. The issue is not whether any one single piece of evidence proves, in and of itself, that Armstrong doped and has by lying all these years and continues to lie. It is the sum of the evidence.
> 
> I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that its a huge amount of evidence but thats not all of it. All of the issues around the SCA trial. The two positive doping samples from the TDF, etc, etc....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Gatorback said:


> I'm surprised by folks who are not convinced after reading the SI article. The issue is not whether any one single piece of evidence proves, in and of itself, that Armstrong doped and has by lying all these years and continues to lie. It is the sum of the evidence.
> 
> I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces.
> 
> ...


Very well put, I agree with what you're saying here.

What will be interesting to see is if any bad stuff about the foundation comes out.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Gatorback said:


> I'm surprised by folks who are not convinced after reading the SI article. The issue is not whether any one single piece of evidence proves, in and of itself, that Armstrong doped and has by lying all these years and continues to lie. It is the sum of the evidence.
> 
> I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces.
> 
> [snip]


This is a very good summary, thanks for writing it. 

A lot of posters here still cannot distinguish between the standards of guilt of the UCI (or WADA or ASO), and the standards of guilt of the (US) court. There are at least two very different rules in place here. So continually re-hashing that he Armstrong was never caught doping is really like complaining that a goal is not scored in real football, because the scoring player didn't enter the goal zone like in american football . 

I can't wait to find out the conclusion of this US federal investigation.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

will be kind here...

bet i can find a bunch of people who don't like anyone of us to testify, under oath, that we all doped, if given a deal, have a grudge to bear, just don't like us on personality alone, and could care less about the repurcussions of perjury..

come on get real....
the courts are a joke, and if one has the money, one can possibly get away with just about anything...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> I'm surprised by folks who are not convinced after reading the SI article. The issue is not whether any one single piece of evidence proves, in and of itself, that Armstrong doped and has by lying all these years and continues to lie. It is the sum of the evidence.
> 
> I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces.
> 
> ...


There could be a picture of him injecting blood into his body and people would cry photoshop. It's beyond ridiculous.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*yeah*

just like the NY Times, the Wall Street Blow Job and any other media controlled by Time Warner or Bloombergn News etc......how many of their primary and secondary sources have even been verified daily????....about 0 bro......

the media is the message mate, always has alway will...


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Could someone please explain to me what Novitzky is hoping to accomplish? 

LA was tested hundreds(thousands?) of times. If there is any doubt as to whether or not he rode clean, it seems a straightforward process of rounding up any remaining properly stored samples and re-testing them in a manner that is both scientifically and legally valid, ending the debate once and for all.

This Novitzky thing to me is total nonsense... Who cares what ex-riders or ex-employess say they saw or heard, its all heresay, and proof of nothing. All this investigation seems to be doing is giving LA's detractors an extra 15minutes of fame at the end of his career, and letting Novitzky travel the world on the U.S. taxpayers' tab. 

The FDA should just subpoena or request any viable remaining samples, retest them in a legally and scientifically valid way and be done with it....


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> I hope he isn't living that lie when he goes before the grand jury. Because he is going to find his ass in a jail cell like Marion Jones.


 Won't happen. Armstrong is in too tight with Bush and C.o. He won't appear in front of any grand jury. He might end up smelling like a floater but he will still be seeing daylight.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

slegros said:


> Could someone please explain to me what Novitzky is hoping to accomplish?
> 
> LA was tested hundreds(thousands?) of times. If there is any doubt as to whether or not he rode clean, it seems a straightforward process of rounding up any remaining properly stored samples and re-testing them in a manner that is both scientifically and legally valid, ending the debate once and for all.
> 
> ...


Almost certainly what Novitsky is trying to accomplish is not proving Armstrong was a doper. Again, I think by the time this all shakes out people who hold to the opinion he didn't dope (or we can't be convinced he did) will be "flat-earthers" but I don't think that's the point of the investigation. Anymore than the BALCO investigation was to prove Bonds doped.

Novitsky is after the doping networks and the people & money that makes them tick.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> Could someone please explain to me what Novitzky is hoping to accomplish?


I think Joe Lindsey put it very well, http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/
"Why, goes one of Fabiani’s best lines, is the FDA of all people interested in some European bike races from a decade ago?

"Well, the response now goes, because one of the most famous sportsmen of the last half-century stands accused of buying stocks of a tightly controlled investigational drug – manufactured by an American pharmaceutical company and intended for use only in clinical trial settings under the regulation of the FDA or its European counterparts and which is illegal to use for any other purpose, or even for a private citizen to possess, much less transport internationally – to pull off a monumental sporting fraud."

But most everyone's heard something along those lines from the beginning of the investigation.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> I'm surprised by folks who are not convinced after reading the SI article. The issue is not whether any one single piece of evidence proves, in and of itself, that Armstrong doped and has by lying all these years and continues to lie. It is the sum of the evidence.
> 
> I'm a trial lawyer. You give me all that evidence for a closing argument in front of a jury, I'll rip Armstrong to pieces.
> 
> ...


The confession you so desperately seek will not change cycling. At all.

There are still prizes for winning, people will still cheat. Cycling, as a sport, will never be clean. Ever. If you think it will be, you're only kidding yourself.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

you want criminals- just take a look at Wall St., and the de-regulators of the last 4 decades..

you want criminals- just take a look at the big 6 acct. firms that cooked the books.

you want criminals- just take a look at the biggest frauds of all, in the telecommunications, airlines, energy and banking industries..we are talking Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$ all at the expense of the US taxpayers, yes, that is right, that is you and me mates, and guess what, these Corporations, which are now individual entities with more rights than you or I, ALL got one big PASS from our govt.

so, please all of you on this micro-trip, just need to wake up and take a look around- it is called situational awareness mates....


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

a_avery007 said:


> you want criminals- just take a look at Wall St., and the de-regulators of the last 4 decades..
> 
> you want criminals- just take a look at the big 6 acct. firms that cooked the books.
> 
> ...


If you want to rant about all those topics, you are in the wrong forum, you should be in "Politics Only" ....


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

just trying to give some people perspective on a very very very very very small problem...


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

a_avery007 said:


> you want criminals- just take a look at Wall St., and the de-regulators of the last 4 decades..
> 
> you want criminals- just take a look at the big 6 acct. firms that cooked the books.
> 
> ...


Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, there are criminals everywhere, but who here really cares? It has absolutely no bearing on this situation, and it doesn't change the fact that Lance Armstrong is being (rightly) investigated by the Federal Government. I'm pretty sure that they have a valid case against him, whether people like it or not.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> The confession you so desperately seek will not change cycling. At all.
> 
> There are still prizes for winning, people will still cheat. Cycling, as a sport, will never be clean. Ever. If you think it will be, you're only kidding yourself.


Suggesting that I'm "desperately" seeking a confession is a little ridiculous. You don't even know who I am. There are many subjects I find of interest, in all kinds of areas including exercise physiology, science, economics, politics, environmental issues and social issues. Cycling is another area that interests me, and doping in cycling. That is why I comment on it and participate in this forum--not because I'm spending my life "desperately seeking a confession." 

People's actions can make a difference in this world. Cycling is almost certainly cleaner today than it was 10 years ago. It is harder to cheat. There are teams taking a stand against it. Sponsors are taking a stand against it. Crime fighting and doping authorities have stepped up their game and are making real inroads. Don't for a moment underestimate the potential significance of this case. Novitzky made a difference in track and field and in baseball. He can make a difference in cycling--especially now that so many European and U.S. agencies are now really working together on these issues. 

I don't have a naive view of the world. Of course there will always be people who will try to skirt the rules. But you have a very skewed, skeptical, and unhealthy view if you don't think peoples' actions can make a difference. They can. And Armstrong has a chance to make huge strides in this area for cycling.

He likely won't confess. I think it is more likely he goes before the grand jury, takes the 5th Amendment on many of the questions--because he is not stupid and doesn't want to go to jail--and some kind of deal is cut where he gets immunity but is forced to testify.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

and as i said b4 that is your opinion bro!!

i don't want my tax $ wasted on this petty crap as many others do not either, and those that do are in a very large minority group...

and if you want to go down this road than apply this to all sports and then one can see this case is irrelevant.

if any other sporting agency tested for drugs in sports we would not have sports...lol


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

a_avery007 said:


> i don't want my tax $ wasted on this petty crap as many others do not either, and those that do are in a very large minority group...


See "The Third Man."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> and as i said b4 that is your opinion bro!!
> 
> i don't want my tax $ wasted on this petty crap as many others do not either, and those that do are in a very large minority group...
> 
> ...


How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK pursuing it?


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

a_avery007 said:


> just trying to give some people perspective on a very very very very very small problem...


It would help if what you posted was remotely relevant, coherent and actually offering a frame of reference relative to the subject discussed.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK pursuing it?


How small does it have to be?

Why are you so obsessed with this and yet you don't crusade against the corporations skirting the laws and screwing people. Why not the politicians screwing people, taking bribes, putting corrupt officials in office?

It's up to YOU to be obsessed with something. Apparently you have some kind of vendetta to display in terms of LA and company. Face it bro, it's unhealthy that you obsess about someone so deeply. 

But hey, only you can choose to care about it. However this turns out, cycling won't change. There will still be doping. There will still be cheating. You and Gator are nieve to believe otherwise.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> How small does it have to be?
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with this and yet you don't crusade against the corporations skirting the laws and screwing people. Why not the politicians screwing people, taking bribes, putting corrupt officials in office?
> 
> ...


It goes both ways. Both are wrong but we're on a cycling messageboard so people are going to focus on Lance. PO it's one of several politicians. Lance has gotten a lot of praise from the media and fans and if true, that's wrong. I'll admit that bothers me since I really believe that cheating is wrong even if everyone is doing it. But that's just me.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> It goes both ways. Both are wrong but we're on a cycling messageboard so people are going to focus on Lance. PO it's one of several politicians. Lance has gotten a lot of praise from the media and fans and if true, that's wrong. I'll admit that bothers me since I really believe that cheating is wrong even if everyone is doing it. But that's just me.


See, the thing that kills me is "praise from the media and fans."

Whoopie de doo. Cheating or not, this is sports. Entertainment. I'm not looking at this guy as my idol, I'm looking for him to provide me a great stage and an exciting race. That's all. Cheat or not, that's what I'm looking for.

If I want to see gritty competition, I'll go watch the local races.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> See, the thing that kills me is "praise from the media and fans."
> 
> Whoopie de doo. Cheating or not, this is sports. Entertainment. I'm not looking at this guy as my idol, I'm looking for him to provide me a great stage and an exciting race. That's all. Cheat or not, that's what I'm looking for.
> 
> If I want to see gritty competition, I'll go watch the local races.


Fair enough but I think dishonesty is wrong and worth examining. You don't when it comes to sports. People can agree to disagree.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Fair enough but I think dishonesty is wrong and worth examining. You don't when it comes to sports. People can agree to disagree.


Probably the best way to put it I've heard.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> How small does it have to be?
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with this and yet you don't crusade against the corporations skirting the laws and screwing people. Why not the politicians screwing people, taking bribes, putting corrupt officials in office?
> 
> ...


Again, this is a cycling forum. If you would like to discuss corporate fraud I am more then willing to discuss it with you.....but this is not the forum.

I in no way think that nailing Armstrong will stop doping. I have said many times that DS', Doctors, and the UCI are the core of the problem. You will note that most of my posts are correcting some who is parroting a talking point. 

So I will ask again, how large does Armstrong's crime have to be for you to care? If it is more then just doping but also financial crimes would you be interested or does he get a pass for those as well? Are the Feds even allowed to investigate Armstrong's potential missdeeds or does he get a full pass for all crimes?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

a_avery007 said:


> and as i said b4 that is your opinion bro!!
> 
> i don't want my tax $ wasted on this petty crap as many others do not either, and those that do are in a very large minority group...
> 
> ...


Could this be the first time that the mods have to move a thread from "THE Doping Forum" to "Politics Only"? 

On a more serious note, how can you say that this is a petty investigation. We don't even know what the formal charges are.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Again, this is a cycling forum. If you would like to discuss corporate fraud I am more then willing to discuss it with you.....but this is not the forum.
> 
> I in no way think that nailing Armstrong will stop doping. I have said many times that DS', Doctors, and the UCI are the core of the problem. You will note that most of my posts are correcting some who is parroting a talking point.
> 
> So I will ask again, how large does Armstrong's crime have to be for you to care? If it is more then just doping but also financial crimes would you be interested or does he get a pass for those as well? Are the Feds even allowed to investigate Armstrong's potential missdeeds or does he get a full pass for all crimes?


The feds have no business involving themselves in sports, unless they install specific laws such as the French have done.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> The feds have no business involving themselves in sports, unless they install specific laws such as the French have done.


When will people realize this has nothing to do with sports?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> The feds have no business involving themselves in sports, unless they install specific laws such as the French have done.


So athletes and mangers should be able to break any laws they like without being investigated? 

Mike Anderson said he saw bags of cash from post Tour Crit's, are you OK with Athletes being allowed to commit tax evasion? Does this exception extend to Weisel or will he be in trouble? 

Landis has said that Och introduced him to a Swiss Banker that would help him hide his income from taxes. Och was Armstrong's personal money manager for years. Do you think Landis that he only gave this advice to Landis and not his best customer? 

Experimental drugs, prescription drugs, and yes even blood, are highly regulated. You appear ok with Athletes using these without any oversight. Does this apply to only professionals or do High School and College atheletes also get this exception?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Landis has said that Och introduced him to a Swiss Banker that would help him hide his income from taxes.


By robdamanii's logic, Landis shouldn't have to hide his income. Since the Fed has no business investigating sports, Landis should be able to not file a tax return without worrying about an IRS investigation.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So athletes and mangers should be able to break any laws they like without being investigated?
> 
> Mike Anderson said he saw bags of cash from post Tour Crit's, are you OK with Athletes being allowed to commit tax evasion? Does this exception extend to Weisel or will he be in trouble?
> 
> ...



Frankly I don't care what people do to themselves. That's entirely their business, as long as they are not affecting me.

I don't particularly look kindly upon others telling me "you can't do that, you might hurt yourself" so don't pretend that this is a crusade to "improve public health."


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Frankly I don't care what people do to themselves. That's entirely their business, as long as they are not affecting me.
> 
> I don't particularly look kindly upon others telling me "you can't do that, you might hurt yourself" so don't pretend that this is a crusade to "improve public health."


It's not always about you, though. You don't care, but other's do.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

asgelle said:


> By robdamanii's logic, Landis shouldn't have to hide his income. Since the Fed has no business investigating sports, Landis should be able to not file a tax return without worrying about an IRS investigation.


Most people who don't pay their taxes (even millionaires included) don't get a federal probe. They pay penalties and get their salary garnished. The fact that Lance is Lance, certainly does have something to do with this...mainly likely due to his "sporting fraud."

We'll simply have to agree to disagree...I find this investigation a waste of resources. You clearly see it as the key to killing doping and the end all be all of "searching for the truth." He didn't ruin your life, he didn't ruin your father's life, or your mother's life. If you want to be sanctimonious and say that "he ruined lives and that's not right" then you're free to do so. I must not have a strong enough moral compass to care since it isn't my life he's after. I guess I understand Lance in his utilitarian character because tend to follow the same path. Frankly, virtue ethics is a waste of time to me, and trying to convince me otherwise is just a waste of time (the same way convincing you that virtue ethics is a waste of time won't happen.)


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

piano said:


> It's not always about you, though. You don't care, but other's do.


Then you're basically telling me that you know what's good and bad for me.

This is precisely what I have a problem with.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> I think Joe Lindsey put it very well, http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/
> "Why, goes one of Fabiani’s best lines, is the FDA of all people interested in some European bike races from a decade ago?
> 
> "Well, the response now goes, because one of the most famous sportsmen of the last half-century stands accused of buying stocks of a tightly controlled investigational drug – manufactured by an American pharmaceutical company and intended for use only in clinical trial settings under the regulation of the FDA or its European counterparts and which is illegal to use for any other purpose, or even for a private citizen to possess, much less transport internationally – to pull off a monumental sporting fraud."
> ...


Thats right... Wasn't the original stated objective of the investigation to determine if US government money(from postal) was used in the commission of sporting fraud? If so wouldn't simply rounding up and re-testing any remaining samples be the only way to conclusively determine that? Even AFTER that you would also need to prove conspiracy within the team that it was systemic and not individual riders doing their own thing. What does traveling the globe regurgitating old here-say accomplish? Sure... it will further tarnish LA's reputation, but short of retesting any properly stored samples its unlikely to prove anything conclusively. The only way I can see this case being proven is if retested samples from multiple postal riders test positive for the same substances on the same days.... In that sense this is similar to the SCA case-very hard to prove. In the end of the SCA case LA was not only awarded the bonus but also fees and costs if I remember correctly.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> We'll simply have to agree to disagree...I find this investigation a waste of resources. You clearly see it as the key to killing doping and the end all be all of "searching for the truth."


Where have I ever said anything about whether the probe is a waste of resources or not. The errors in your posts exist independent of any views I might have on the subject and pointing out said errors does not imply anything about my personal position.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

asgelle said:


> Actually that's not important at all. All that matters is did someone possess, transport, or sell a drug illegally. How that drug may have been used (if at all) is irrelevant.


My point was that many people say this is all made up because no one in their right mind would ever use this drug given the apparently side effects. I was pointing out that the side effects were under conditions, and doses, that are completely different from how a athlete would use them to enhance performance - likely many of the side effects would not come to fruition, and thus it's entirely plausible that it could be used.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

txzen said:


> My point was that many people say this is all made up because no one in their right mind would ever use this drug given the apparently side effects. I was pointing out that the side effects were under conditions, and does, that are completely different from how a athlete would use them to enhance performance - likely many of the side effects would not come to fruition, and thus it's entirely plausible that it could be used.


Supposedly these types of drugs are what nearly killed Museeuw when he broke his knee cap in Paris-Roubaix?

Not sure why, I haven't read up on them at all.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

a_avery007 said:


> and as i said b4 that is your opinion bro!!
> 
> i don't want my tax $ wasted on this petty crap as many others do not either, and those that do are in a very large minority group...
> 
> ...


So it's OK for the USPS to be conned out of funds by virtue of fraudulent results from 1998-2004? Had the results been less glorious (No TdF wins) they may not have re-upped to the tune of $30m of public money.

By successfully fleecing USPS, Tailwind managed to waste millions of tax dollars already. Don't you want someone to answer for that?


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

ultimobici said:


> So it's OK for the USPS to be conned out of funds by virtue of fraudulent results from 1998-2004? Had the results been less glorious (No TdF wins) they may not have re-upped to the tune of $30m of public money.
> 
> By successfully fleecing USPS, Tailwind managed to waste millions of tax dollars already. Don't you want someone to answer for that?


Don't forget the possibility of having public funds dumped into paying for the doping program.


----------

