# Armstrong settles suit with SCA.



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

*Armstrong pays $10 million to settle SCA litigation case*

Houston Chronicle (actually AP) version


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It's nice to be done with that one.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

I guess that leaves him with about $115,000,000.99 had to throw on the .99 

So whistle blower worst case $90mil With triple damages... Can he live on $25,000,000.00 ?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

see, cheating stills beneficial to life's end. You cheat, you become famous, you make a ton of money, then pay a little portion of it back while millions left. That's a lot more than engineers and doctors will ever saved in their life times.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Well we can't exactly erase his history.. And all his wealth. He made a lot of money for others too.. I don't see them paying anything back


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> see, cheating stills beneficial to life's end. You cheat, you become famous, you make a ton of money, then pay a little portion of it back while millions left. That's a lot more than engineers and doctors will ever saved in their life times.


Sure, Armstrong may still come out on top. But cheating at cycling has pretty low odds as a path to financial success. 

There's no guarantee that drugs will make a mediocre rider a pro. Of those who make it pro, for every dope who makes it to the TdF there had to be dozens of dirty pros who don't get that far, at least in Armstrong's era. And if 100-150 of the guys riding in Armstrong's last TdF were dirty, how many are now millionaires?

If I had to pick between being a pro (clean or dirty) and a doctor or engineer, I'd take a real profession and race bikes on the weekend.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

robt57 said:


> I guess that leaves him with about $115,000,000.99 had to throw on the .99
> 
> So whistle blower worst case $90mil With triple damages... Can he live on $25,000,000.00 ?


You forgot about what his own lawyers are costing him, and other suits/settlements along the way. From the Austin grapevine, his wealth has dwindled down to something ~$50 million. If that estimate is close then the prospects of a loss in the Landis/U.S. suit stand to be rather devastating, financially.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spdntrxi said:


> Well we can't exactly erase his history.. And all his wealth. He made a lot of money for others too.. I don't see them paying anything back


Shortly after SCA paid the original settlement Lance sent Ferrari his cut, $465,000. Wonder if Ferrari will repay that?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Shortly after SCA paid the original settlement Lance sent Ferrari his cut, $465,000. Wonder if Ferrari will repay that?


as soon as Armstrong shows the receipt


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

den bakker said:


> as soon as Armstrong shows the receipt


He showed the receipt when telling everyone how clean it was. It said "wind tunnel testing and aero fitting". Which we all know Dr. Ferrari was a specialist with his own wind tunnel.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

deviousalex said:


> He showed the receipt when telling everyone how clean it was. It said "wind tunnel testing and aero fitting". Which we all know Dr. Ferrari was a specialist with his own wind tunnel.


And that he was paying ol' Michele half a million bucks for it, when Trek would have done it for free. :lol:


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

*Lance pays up*

get out the check book boooooiiiiiieeeeee!!! :thumbsup:



Lance Armstrong settles Tour de France payments dispute with SCA Promotions - Cycling Weekly


in addition to the United States Government wanting a piece of him.... 


US government requests Lance Armstrong's cancer treatment records - Cycling Weekly



its only just begun, son....


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

There's a doping forum for this type of stuff with a thread going on there.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

Forbes on Lance Cycling Tax Issues.......Enter Code 1341......where the REAL fun begins!









*CODE 1341*


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Too bad. He's likely the greatest cyclist I will ever see in my lifetime.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

tvad said:


> Too bad. He's likely the greatest cyclist I will ever see in my lifetime.


I agree.

What he may have lacked (very slightly) in natural physical talent, he made up with shear mental fortitude to win and not to accept anything less. It's amazing what one can accomplish physically when the mind tells it to. It's too bad he was such an a$$hole, but that may be one of his traits that allowed him to accept nothing but the win. Nothing was going to allow him to settle for second best.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

tvad said:


> Too bad. He's likely the greatest cyclist I will ever see in my lifetime.



give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

i will agree....his mental "fortitude", and desire to win at all costs was way above par........like that of a sociopath. 


Winning at all costs is often a two way street. :mad2:

it has made for some fun docs and storytelling though, huh? :thumbsup:





love4himies said:


> I agree.
> 
> What he may have lacked (very slightly) in natural physical talent, he made up with shear mental fortitude to win and not to accept anything less. It's amazing what one can accomplish physically when the mind tells it to. It's too bad he was such an a$$hole, but that may be one of his traits that allowed him to accept nothing but the win. Nothing was going to allow him to settle for second best.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Rokh Hard said:


> give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


This is a tired discussion. As we all know, Lance's primary competition were all doped, too. It was a level playing field of doped cyclists. 

Lance is getting what he deserves. 

For me, it doesn't take away from his accomplishments, nor the incredible excitement of many of those TDF stages.

It's clear that you are enjoying the schadenfreude. 

To each his own.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

tvad said:


> This is a tired discussion. As we all know, Lance's primary competition were all doped, too. It was a level playing field of doped cyclists.


level yes.......a very low level......justifying sed low level because "eveyone else is doing it" is simply.....bullshit. 



> Lance is getting what he deserves.


....yet he deserves so much more still. :thumbsup:




> For me, it doesn't take away from his accomplishments, nor the incredible excitement of many of those TDF stages.


almost as exciting for the millions of people who came to find out it was all based on deceit and lies. now thats entertainment.




> It's clear that you are enjoying the schadenfreude.



....yeah....well.....its no match for the farfegnugen lance gleaned from millions of dollars earned by his pathological lying, deceit, and the ruining of peoples lives. yeah....you could say im a bit enlightened to see some "payback time" for the boy. 

in short: lance is a simple cyclist, turned simple criminal......who bathed like a heathen in greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, lust and pride. 



> To each his own.



we are all part of the same human experience. digit. :thumbsup:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Enjoy your thread.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Rokh Hard said:


> give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


In your dreams maybe.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

tvad said:


> Enjoy your thread.


Careful what you say. Rokh is just sensitive enough to put you on his ignore list.:cryin:


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

love4himies said:


> In your dreams maybe.


In my dreams is just fine At my age everything else is irrelevant.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

ibericb said:


> In my dreams is just fine At my age everything else is irrelevant.


I often imagine that I'm riding like a pro.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Then I look down at my Garmin and that brings me back to reality. But for a woman in my 50's I think I'm doing pretty good and happy with my rides.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

tvad said:


> Enjoy your thread.


thank you. enjoy your delusions.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

you are what you say you are. enjoy!! :thumbsup:





love4himies said:


> I often imagine that I'm riding like a pro.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Rokh Hard said:


> give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


I very much doubt that. Of course, I don't really know you, but I am fairly certain for myself, I'd never reach that level of performance, no matter how much drugs I may take.


----------



## Christine (Jul 23, 2005)

He may have been on a level playing field, but he was boasting about his lack of doping. That's how he built his reputation. 

Such a shame that we'll never be able to clean up the sport. Would be nice to have separate stats for each race, at least- the doping field and the clean field. If only it were possible to make a distinction.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

Christine said:


> He may have been on a level playing field, but he was boasting about his lack of doping. That's how he built his reputation.



and now he has another reputation:


"LANCE ARMSTRONG: THE GREATEST FRAUD IN U.S. SPORTS' HISTORY"




> Such a shame that we'll never be able to clean up the sport.



...just need a bigger broom is all. :thumbsup:


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

In before the move.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Christine said:


> Such a shame that we'll never be able to clean up the sport. Would be nice to have separate stats for each race, at least- the doping field and the clean field. If only it were possible to make a distinction.


The problem now is, even if it were or is clean, few will believe it. Cycling has a very, very long history of doping that dates back well before Armstrong. In spite of that many still believed that the sport was dominated by clean riders, and the doping was limited to the minority. After Armstrong that is no longer the case. Post-Armstrong anyone who wins, or shows even a moment of exceptional performance, will be judged in the court of public opinion to be the product of illicit drug use. 

Until someone figures out a way to conclusively prove a cyclist is truly clean, which isn't going to happen in my lifetime, Armstrong managed to completely destroy any trust and belief. That's his real legacy in cycling.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

I must post in this EPIC thread so I can brag I was a part of it.

I have nothing to contribute but this picture.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I often imagine that I can hang on in a Pro race.....for 5 miles, at 30 mph....Well, maybe 8 miles, if nobody jumps.

Armstrong is the Greatest cheater, ever. The Bestest cheater, on a team of cheaters. The most bestest cheater, in a peloton of Cheaters.
His downfall was by violating the most important rule of Professional sports........Never get caught.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

Shouldn't this be in the "Components and Wrenching" forum, since Lance is such a Tool?


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Rokh Hard said:


> get out the check book boooooiiiiiieeeeee!!! :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It would be nice to be able to write a check with an amount with 6 or more zeros in it


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

factory feel said:


> Shouldn't this be in the "Components and Wrenching" forum, since Lance is such a Tool?


Oh, that made me laugh.


----------



## mapeiboy (Oct 31, 2007)

Rokh Hard said:


> thank you. enjoy your delusions.


Look who is delusional here . You really think you can be a top professional cyclist with the help of drugs . There are many cat 1 cyclists who are dope to their eyeballs and yet can not move to the next lever no matter what .


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Oh, that made me laugh.





factory feel said:


> Shouldn't this be in the "Components and Wrenching" forum, since Lance is such a Tool?



CXs rep is starting to permiate into the common folk


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Rokh Hard said:


> give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


then again, probably not.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Rokh Hard said:


> give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


 
Many people say the same things in cycling, running, bodybuilding, etc.The sad truth is people like us don't have the genetics, the desire, or the work ethic to make a pimple on a pro cyclists ass.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

nOOky said:


> Many people say the same things in cycling, running, bodybuilding, etc.The sad truth is people like us don't have the genetics, the desire, or the work ethic* to make a pimple on a pro cyclists ass.*


Oh Jeebus, I didn't need that visual in my head.


----------



## ColaJacket (Apr 13, 2015)

tvad said:


> Too bad. He's likely the greatest cyclist I will ever see in my lifetime.


Not old enough to remember Greg Lemond?

GH


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ColaJacket said:


> Not old enough to remember Greg Lemond?
> 
> GH


I'm old enough. He was great, too.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

ibericb said:


> The problem now is, even if it were or is clean, few will believe it. Cycling has a very, very long history of doping that dates back well before Armstrong. In spite of that many still believed that the sport was dominated by clean riders, and the doping was limited to the minority. After Armstrong that is no longer the case. Post-Armstrong anyone who wins, or shows even a moment of exceptional performance, will be judged in the court of public opinion to be the product of illicit drug use.
> 
> Until someone figures out a way to conclusively prove a cyclist is truly clean, which isn't going to happen in my lifetime, Armstrong managed to completely destroy any trust and belief. That's his real legacy in cycling.


If it wasn't Armstrong, it would have been whoever else won, since they were all doped. He didn't completely destroy all trust and belief singlehandedly. It was already ruined before Armstrong's tdf string. Remember festina? (I don't personally, but read enough about it that it should have been clear to everyone that doping was the norm, not the exception).

My question regards the whistleblower suit. Armstrong only received part of what the USPS team paid, as other rider's and staff were also paid (others who doped, too). So how come everything I read says Armstrong would be on the hook for the whole amount? Shouldn't each team member be accountable for a percentage according to what they were paid?


----------



## gearloose (Feb 25, 2007)

Rokh Hard said:


> give me enough drugs and ill be the greatest cyclist you will see in your lifetime. :thumbsup:


Go ahead. Give it a shot. We're waiting to see the results.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

geezusheyzeus.....are you fooking kidding me?

forchristsake....ill add to my previous statement this (seeing as it got several of our esteemed members panties in a wad) :cryin:

"give YOU enough drugs....and ill be the greatest cyclist you will ever see in your lifetime" :thumbsup:

there....was that enough lube? 





gearloose said:


> Go ahead. Give it a shot. We're waiting to see the results.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

nOOky said:


> The sad truth is people like us don't have the genetics, the desire, or the work ethic to make a pimple on a pro cyclists ass.


dope makes up for lack of genetics, what do you think its for, getting high?

.......pimple on ass? awwww man....i can send you some SUPER ripe pix of an gyfookinnormous abcess on this cyclists ass....in fact i have to go pack the hole with gauze right now....brb.....(im so totally serious....i got some killer pix of my infected taint of the last two weeks if you want to see a pimple on a real cyclists ass, heh.) :thumbsup:


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Armstrong is the Greatest cheater, ever. The Bestest cheater, on a team of cheaters. The most bestest cheater, in a peloton of Cheaters.


yep, yep, yep, yep, yep and yep. :thumbsup:



> His downfall was by violating the most important rule of Professional sports........Never get caught.



no. lances downfall was being a lying, deceitful, vindictive sociopath twatwaffle who took a lot of money based on lies and purgery and thinking he could get away with it.

the mans biggest mistake is not getting caught doping...but getting caught lying and purging himself....dude....if yer gonna get caught man up and take the flogging the first time around....cuz when it comes around again, and it *will* come around again....it aint going to be a flogging....they are taking your head.....that said, lance can now look directly up into his ass with his head in his hands.....a flogging never looked so good to a man holding his head in his hands.....and neither did 20/20 hindsight. bummer for him. :cryin:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

$500,000 for high cadence.


----------



## RHankey (Sep 7, 2007)

Rokh Hard said:


> the mans biggest mistake is not getting caught doping...but getting caught lying and *purging* himself


What's wrong with purging one's self? Should he have been more anal retentive?


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

So many subplots to this thread.:thumbsup:

Not sure why people feel so strongly about Lance. He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat. I don't see the love or the hate for him. I guess it was his level of fame that draws such emotion. To me, he is what he is. 

Regarding the professional level with drugs, I can attest to the fact that it takes much more than just drugs, training, and time to become a professional (let alone the greatest professional). I, like many on here, have raced with current professionals (before they became professional), and it was clear that nobody in that race was the same caliber. Sorry, there is WAY more to it that just drugs.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

jspharmd said:


> Not sure why people feel so strongly about Lance. He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat. I don't see the love or the hate for him. I guess it was his level of fame that draws such emotion. To me, he is what he is.


I guess they convinced themselves that of all of the drug users in the TDF Lance would be the only 7x winner that didn't dope. So when he was busted they were crushed.

The idea that in a group of dopers all it takes is for an average cyclist to dope and he will rise to the level of a TDF winner is awesome! That's the only thing holding them back!


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

RHankey said:


> What's wrong with purging one's self? Should he have been more anal retentive?



nothings wrong the a good purge....at my age its cause for a fookin pig roast when it happens. holyhallayouyah. :thumbsup:


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

jspharmd said:


> ...
> Not sure why people feel so strongly about Lance. He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat. I don't see the love or the hate for him. I guess it was his level of fame that draws such emotion. To me, he is what he is.
> ...


I feel the same way but some people like to get their panties all up in a wad.


----------



## ColaJacket (Apr 13, 2015)

Jwiffle said:


> *If it wasn't Armstrong, it would have been whoever else won*, since they were all doped. He didn't completely destroy all trust and belief singlehandedly. It was already ruined before Armstrong's tdf string. Remember festina? (I don't personally, but read enough about it that it should have been clear to everyone that doping was the norm, not the exception).


Yeah, has anyone noticed how almost all of those TdF victories were vacated instead of awarded to another cyclist?

That's because all of the cyclists that finished well, were tested well, and almost all of them were found to be doping. And they're not going into the field that they didn't test well, to award the yellow jersey.

Don't hate Lance the Pro Cyclist, as he was just doing what others were doing.

Hate Lance, the pro douchebag, because he tried or did destroy those that accused him of doping. 

GH


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

jspharmd said:


> He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat.


No he didn't. There are plenty of well documented publications (many including sworn testimony) showing he cheated in ways no one else was.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

asgelle said:


> No he didn't. There are plenty of well documented publications (many including sworn testimony) showing he cheated in ways no one else was.



he did have lots of help....but alas he is the head of the snake.....therefore the beheading.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

ColaJacket said:


> Not old enough to remember Greg Lemond?
> 
> GH


I'm older than both Greg and Hinault, and only a few years younger than Eddy.

Crap, I was 11 when Anquetil won his last Tour---although I'll admit I never heard of him at the time. 

Lance had 7 Tours. Hinault has 5 Tours, 3 Giros, and 2 Vueltas. 10-7, edge to the Badger.

Eddy has 5 Tours, 5 Giros, and a Vuelta. 11-7, edge to the Cannibal.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

jspharmd said:


> So many subplots to this thread.:thumbsup:
> 
> Not sure why people feel so strongly about Lance. He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat. I don't see the love or the hate for him. I guess it was his level of fame that draws such emotion. To me, he is what he is.


Maybe it also had something to do with the fact that instead of doing what the next biggest doper did, namely Indurain, smile and avoid the issue, Lance was militantly adamant about not doping and sued the living **** out of anyone who dared question him. 

The moral is, dope your brains out if you want, but no one loves a hypocrite. We take the same pleasure in seeing some gay-bashing TV preacher caught in a motel room with some young dude. :wink:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rokh Hard said:


> Forbes on Lance Cycling Tax Issues.......Enter Code 1341......where the REAL fun begins!
> View attachment 309539
> 
> 
> ...


Lance would be happy if this was the case, but it isn't. 

The recent activity with SCA was not a re-opening of the settlement but a sanction for his actions. He will not be able to recover any of the taxes he paid on the original deal as this was a penalty that was separate form that settlement. 

After paying taxes, legal fees, agent fees, Ferrari, The initial policy, etc. lance walked from the original deal with $2,500,000-3,000,000. He just paid SCA $12,000,000 to settle two cases they had pending. He also burnt another $1,000,000 in legal fees. 

Messing with SCA was one of Armstrong's dumber moves.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Messing with SCA was one of Armstrong's dumber moves.


that and the IRS. THAT will be interesting to watch for sure.
View attachment 309564


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

mpre53 said:


> The moral is, dope your brains out if you want, but no one loves a hypocrite.



but hes so much more! :thumbsup:




> We take the same pleasure in seeing some gay-bashing TV preacher caught in a motel room with some young dude. :wink:



cant disagree with you on that one either.....but then again....ive to expect that from those folks.....so its no big surprise anymore.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> No he didn't. There are plenty of well documented publications (many including sworn testimony) showing he cheated in ways no one else was.


This

I am amazed that people still spew the "Level Playing Field" nonsense. With all the books and articles about Armstrong's fraud you would think that people would realize the playing field was not level.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am amazed that people still spew the "Level Playing Field" nonsense.


justifying ones bad behavior because "everyone else is doing it"....is rather juvenile. sadly that is pretty prevalent both for the perps and the sheep repeating this nonsense. its lame. :thumbsup:


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

mpre53 said:


> I'm older than both Greg and Hinault, and only a few years younger than Eddy.
> 
> Crap, I was 11 when Anquetil won his last Tour---although I'll admit I never heard of him at the time.
> 
> ...


now add monuments victories
Eddy is still #1, Bernard still #2 so Lance was never the greatest I have ever seen


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Messing with SCA was one of Armstrong's dumber moves.


One of the most interesting revelations in Macur's book was that Bob Hamman was a 12-time world bridge champion and certainly knew how to lay out a long term strategy.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

nOOky said:


> Many people say the same things in cycling, running, bodybuilding, etc.The sad truth is people like us don't have the genetics, the desire, or the work ethic to make a pimple on a pro cyclists ass.


Don't forget the back dated prescription for steroids to treat that 'pimple.'


----------



## dasho (Apr 8, 2002)

jspharmd said:


> So many subplots to this thread.:thumbsup:
> 
> Not sure why people feel so strongly about Lance. He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat. I don't see the love or the hate for him. I guess it was his level of fame that draws such emotion. To me, he is what he is.
> 
> Speaking for myself, it wasn't so much the doping he was doing as others were doing the same. It's more about the way he attacked those who knew he doped. It got to the point he was threatening his detractors and even ruining their careers. I think his arrogance finally did him in.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

dasho said:


> He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat.


Right there; that's the point you went off the rails. No one else cheated like Armstrong did.


----------



## GKSki (Nov 12, 2014)

Think he was cheating the year he rolled in last at San Sebastián when practically everyone had gone home, then later that fall way off the back in Montreal?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

dasho said:


> Not sure why people feel so strongly about Lance. He cheated like (nearly) all professional athletes cheat. I don't see the love or the hate for him. I guess it was his level of fame that draws such emotion. To me, he is what he is.
> 
> Speaking for myself, it wasn't so much the doping he was doing as others were doing the same. It's more about the way he attacked those who knew he doped. It got to the point he was threatening his detractors and even ruining their careers. I think his arrogance finally did him in.


The second paragraph answers your first.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

GKSki said:


> Think he was cheating the year he rolled in last at San Sebastián when practically everyone had gone home, then later that fall way off the back in Montreal?


Yes. The same way he was cheating during his comeback.

I think he was cheating from 1987 at the latest.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

asgelle said:


> Right there; that's the point you went off the rails. No one else cheated like Armstrong did.


All the GC guys cheated like Armstrong in that era.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

love4himies said:


> All the GC guys cheated like Armstrong in that era.


Hi. You must be new here.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This
> 
> I am amazed that people still spew the "Level Playing Field" nonsense. With all the books and articles about Armstrong's fraud you would think that people would realize the playing field was not level.





Rokh Hard said:


> justifying ones bad behavior because "everyone else is doing it"....is rather juvenile. sadly that is pretty prevalent both for the perps and the sheep repeating this nonsense. its lame. :thumbsup:





love4himies said:


> All the GC guys cheated like Armstrong in that era.


How dare they criticize OUR hero. 

Why can't they love the myth like we do!

We were moving into the Speedo portion of our hero's career and I know I'd enjoy looking at that God just as much as you would!

Maybe he'll be back in 4 years !

I love him so...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

love4himies said:


> All the GC guys cheated like Armstrong in that era.


http://www.amazon.com/Wheelmen-Arms...=UTF8&qid=1451232827&sr=1-1&keywords=wheelman

http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Lies-Fa...&ie=UTF8&qid=1451232907&sr=1-1&keywords=Macur


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

asgelle said:


> Wheelmen: Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France, and the Greatest Sports Conspiracy Ever: Reed Albergotti, Vanessa O'Connell: 9781592408887: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Lies-Fa...&ie=UTF8&qid=1451232907&sr=1-1&keywords=Macur


I've read the Wheelman, but thanks for pointing that out. That book was about Armstrong and his "men", not what the other teams were doing.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Jackhammer said:


> How dare they criticize OUR hero.
> 
> Why can't they love the myth like we do!
> 
> ...


My apologies, lol. I forgot myself for a minute. 

But I have to speak the truth and the truth of that era was all the top guys were doping otherwise they wouldn't have made it to the top. (and by top guys, I mean the ones that were winning races, not necessarily those with the most natural talent).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> My apologies, lol. I forgot myself for a minute.
> 
> But I have to speak the truth and the truth of that era was all the top guys were doping otherwise they wouldn't have made it to the top. (and by top guys, I mean the ones that were winning races, not necessarily those with the most natural talent).



At the 1999 Tour de France teams were very scared to bring EPO into France. Armstrong was not, he hired his gardener to bring drugs in on a motorcycle, but not for everyone on the team, just a select few. 

They retro tested 83 samples from the 1999 Tour. After the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong, 1 of them belonged to his teammate Kevin Livingston. If everyone was doing it why didn't more samples come up positive like they did in the 1998 retro tests that had 32 positives? 

When the EPO test came in 2000. Ferrari got an advanced look at it and shifted a small group of USPS riders to transfusions. What other teams were doing transfusions in 2000? 

The "Everyone was doing it" nonsense has been exposed over and over. Surprised anyone repeats it


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Please stop suggesting that the retrotesting exonerates other racers. Let's not forget that there have been a few guys who confessed to doping during that race but never had their samples show up positive in the retrotesting. 

With the '99 retro testing, there were 20 positives, 34 negatives, and 30 inconclusive tests. For all we know those 30 inconclusive tests were positive. 

Either way, lots of guys were doing it. 

Some may have stopped after the prologue. Because they cheated up until the day of the race but not during the race, are they somehow better? I don't know. 

We do know that Armstrong was probably doing more of it. He was better at cheating. He was more brazen. But had he never existed there still would have been cheating, just at a slightly lower level. Instead of Armstrong being the top cheater, someone else would have been the top cheater. And that scumbag would have won in Armstrong's place. Of course there is nothing that other riders did that could make what Armstrong did OK. Yet Armstrong was an a-hole and a cheater in a sport full of a-hole cheaters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Please stop suggesting that the retrotesting exonerates other racers. Let's not forget that there have been a few guys who confessed to doping during that race but never had their samples show up positive in the retrotesting.
> .


Who? 

The reality is multiple riders and teams have said they were scared to take dope into France in 1999. No surprise that the retro testing showed a sharp drop off in positives. 

Here are the post-Prolouge test results

186-585**	5/6 July	No ID	N/A
186-586**	5/6 July	No ID	N/A
157-373	9 July Kevin Livingston (USA)[15]	US Postal
160-293*	12/10 July	No ID	N/A
186-584*	11 July Lance Armstrong (USA)[21]	US Postal
185-557	13 July Lance Armstrong (USA)[21]	US Postal
185-894*	13 July	No ID	N/A
185-479	14 July Lance Armstrong (USA)[15][21]	US Postal
186-399	14 July	No ID	N/A
185-475	16 July Lance Armstrong (USA)[21]	US Postal
185-895*	17 July Lance Armstrong (USA)[21]	US Postal
185-892*	18 July	No ID	N/A
185-898	18 July	No ID	N/A
186-397	18 July Lance Armstrong (USA)[21]	US Postal
185-555**	20 July Wladimir Belli (ITA)[15]	Festina-Lotus

Notice a pattern? Almost all the positives came from one guy. One of the few non-Armstrong positives came from his USPS teammate Kevin Livingston. It is likely that a few of the other positives with no name attached were also USPS riders. Huge difference from 1998 where 30 different riders were positive/suspicious. 

The facts are clear, Hct drops significantly during during a Grand Tour. The ability to keep it high by using EPO is a huge advantage. 

What other teams used transfusions in 2000? 

The level playing field myth has been proven wrong over and over. Odd that some folks still spew it


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Now suspend Eddie after his second drug test failure...for life. How many would he have won?

Granted Lance would still have zero, so yes I just divided by zero.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Tour_de_France#Additional_doping_confessions


> The reality is multiple riders and teams have said they were scared to take dope into France in 1999. No surprise that the retro testing showed a sharp drop off in positives.


So nearly everyone took drugs, but only a few took them into France? 




> Almost all the positives came from one guy.


Armstrong was tested more than any other athlete. 



> Huge difference from 1998 where 30 different riders were positive/suspicious.


And 30 samples from 1999 were inconclusive.


With the '99 retro testing, there were 20 positives, 34 negatives, and 30 inconclusive tests. For all we know those 30 inconclusive tests were positive. 

Either way, lots of guys were doing it. 

Some may have stopped after the prologue. Because they cheated up until the day of the race but not during the race, are they somehow better? I don't know. 

We do know that Armstrong was probably doing more of it. He was better at cheating. He was more brazen. But had he never existed there still would have been cheating, just at a slightly lower level. Instead of Armstrong being the top cheater, someone else would have been the top cheater. And that scumbag would have won in Armstrong's place. Of course there is nothing that other riders did that could make what Armstrong did OK. Yet Armstrong was an a-hole and a cheater in a sport full of a-hole cheaters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> So nearly everyone took drugs, but only a few took them into France?
> 
> ........
> 
> ...


Yup, as the testing clearly shows few took EPO into France. Even Belli did not take EPO into France, he slipped over the border into Spain on the rest day. 

After the 1st week of the Tour Hct starts to dive. 13% on average. If you start the Tour at 50% by the start of the 3rd week you are at 40%. Not Armstrong. While the rest of the peloton was scared he had Motoman. They were at 40%, or less, while he was topped up to 50%.

How is that level? We both know it isn't. Not sure why you pretend it is. You keep claiming "Lots of guys where doing it" but the facts show that during the 1999 Tour few were. 

How about 2000? Who was transfusing besides 3 guys in USPS?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Either way, lots of guys were doing it.


I have no doubt that a lot of riders were doping in '99, but probably the vast majority stopped before the Tour. 

Your indication that you agree Postal was better at cheating shows that it was not a level playing field. That doesn't excuse the other riders in the least just because they weren't glowing. Postal gambled and won (for a while). Once they had that win, they doubled down in subsequent Tours. Few teams had the resources or nerve to do that in the face of new doping tests. No other GC contender's team had Ferrari (Tyler and Floyd have admitted no other doctor they worked with was close to his caliber).

To get what Lance had, I bet any number of riders would have injected cancer cells into their lady parts if they thought it would work. More than a few tried to match him on the doping front. How come they didn't succeed? It certainly wasn't raw talent on Lance's part.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> More than a few tried to match him on the doping front. How come they didn't succeed? It certainly wasn't raw talent on Lance's part.


Good question. 

It seems that logistics were a bigger hurdle than morality/ethics.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Good question.
> 
> It seems that logistics was a bigger hurdle than morality/ethics.


I would imagine his H&H naturally ran lower and he saw much more of a boost. Something exceptionally different about Armstrong and Big Mig with how they responded. 

I'd imagine I'd be a poor responder to EPO since my H&H already run relatively high. I'd probably have to hit Riis levels before showing a big response. 

Nonetheless, part of Armstrong's success was due to a lack of crashes compared to his rivals. He kind of "got lucky" in 99 with most of the top rivals injured or suspended.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup, as the testing clearly shows few took EPO into France. Even Belli did not take EPO into France, he slipped over the border into Spain on the rest day.
> 
> After the 1st week of the Tour Hct starts to dive. 13% on average. If you start the Tour at 50% by the start of the 3rd week you are at 40%. Not Armstrong. While the rest of the peloton was scared he had Motoman. They were at 40%, or less, while he was topped up to 50%.
> 
> ...


Love is not rational.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Jackhammer said:


> Love is not rational.


You are so funny :lol:


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Nonetheless, part of Armstrong's success was due to a lack of crashes compared to his rivals. He kind of "got lucky" in 99 with most of the top rivals injured or suspended.


He also "got lucky" with his back-dated 'script for cortisone.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Is there any actual evidence that Armstrong was the most tested athlete? Especially in the 99 tour. The only guy I've heard say this is Armstrong himself.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

deviousalex said:


> Is there any actual evidence that Armstrong was the most tested athlete? Especially in the 99 tour. The only guy I've heard say this is Armstrong himself.


The one you're most likely thinking of wasn't even the most tested cyclist named Armstrong.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

1999 tdf retrotesting shows six positive Armstrong samples out of 83 or 84 tested. Who was tested more?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> 1999 tdf retrotesting shows six positive Armstrong samples out of 83 or 84 tested. Who was tested more?


Well, in order to answer that question, we would need to know who the other 78 samples belonged to.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> Well, in order to answer that question, we would need to know who the other 78 samples belonged to.


don't get suckered into a discussion of a 3 week period.


----------

