# Amstrong's ride in a charity



## Jwiffle

So Armstrong has agreed to ride a couple days in a charity that covers stages of the TDF. Non-UCI event, so he can't be banned from it. But, of course, Cookson and many others are stating it's disrespectful and improper for him to participate.

And people say Armstrong was not a scapegoat. Trying to ban him from things he can't be banned from. If I was him, I'd ride the whole event, not just two days.

(Not that I think Lance shouldn't have received a ban, but his ban is excessive compared to everyone else's, and the continued attempts to ban him from anything bike related even though outside the sanctioning body's purview is ridiculous)


----------



## Jwiffle

OK Tapatalk, I posted this in Doping, how did it get here?


----------



## jfaas

I agree, they took him out of races and wiped his name from the books. Leave him alone.


----------



## pmf

I don't get Lance. He needs to disappear for a while. That seems to be the formula for redemption in this society. Instead, he just keeps popping up in the news. He should quietly move to Portugal for a couple years and disappear. 

I see Marv Albert on TV these days -- I forget what he got caught doing. Hell David Patreus has been visiting the White House giving the president advice on the middle east. Disappear Lance, we're sick of ya.


----------



## BikeLayne

Well I think it is great that he would do a ride for charity. I hope he enjoys the ride.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



Jwiffle said:


> OK Tapatalk, I posted this in Doping, how did it get here?


No worries, I moved it for you.


----------



## love4himies

This is a charity event that is to raise money for cancer and Lance is a perfect candidate to ride it. Cookson needs to step out of the way, keep his opinions to himself as this has nothing to do with the UCI. He just wants to appear to be politically correct by bad mouthing the monster of cycling. Shame on him.


----------



## den bakker

well it's not like he has used cancer before to benefit personally and make people shut up.


----------



## mpre53

love4himies said:


> This is a charity event that is to raise money for cancer and Lance is a perfect candidate to ride it. Cookson needs to step out of the way, keep his opinions to himself as this has nothing to do with the UCI. He just wants to appear to be politically correct by bad mouthing the monster of cycling. Shame on him.


And of course, the fact that this charity event is being held while the Tour is underway, allowing him to upstage it if only slightly, never was part of the equation. 

About 3 weeks later, there's a charity ride to benefit pediatric cancer, about 3500 miles closer to Austin, that actually gives 100% of the monies raised by the participants to cancer research. He's actually ridden that one before. :wink:


----------



## love4himies

Some history:

In the News: Guess who's coming back to the Tour (kind of)? - VeloNews.com



> The Mail reported that Armstrong will join former footballer and cancer survivor Geoff Thomas for few days of a fundraising ride for a cancer charity. Thomas said Armstrong’s own tale of surviving cancer inspired him more than a decade ago, and now he wants to link up with the Texan in a charity ride ahead of the Tour route.
> 
> “There are huge sections of the book [Armstrong’s ‘It’s Not About the Bike’] that, for me, remain sincere and truthful,” Thomas said. “I’m not here to defend Lance, and I’m certainly not trying to present him as a victim. He has made his mistakes, and now he’s paying the price. But none of that actually concerns me. This isn’t about cycling or doping or the UCI. This is about cancer and saving lives.”
> 
> The story said Thomas met Armstrong “face-to-face,” and then persuaded him to join his fundraising effort.
> 
> “If anything, I’m using Lance here. I’ve pursued him. I’ve flown to Texas to see him, and I’ve persuaded him to get involved again,” Thomas said.


----------



## asciibaron

Armstrong is tainted. he needs to stay the hell away from any kind of cycling event. his presence could be seen as condoning his actions. the LAST thing a charity needs is a bad rep.


----------



## road addict

or he could help raise money for a good cause


----------



## Jon D

While Lance has 'history' I think this is too much, he is helping raise money for charity and it appears he was talked into it more than anything else.. see below

Geoff Thomas: Why I invited Lance Armstrong back to the Tour - Cycling Weekly


----------



## Local Hero

What's the big deal?


----------



## robt57

Local Hero said:


> What's the big deal?




He is Satan, haven't you been following the threads?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> Trying to ban him from things he can't be banned from.


I must have missed this part, who is trying to ban him from riding his bike in France? The police? Armstrong and his team routinely broke the laws of France but most of that is beyond that statue of limitations. 

One thing for sure, there will be some great parties.


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I must have missed this part, who is trying to ban him from riding his bike in France? The police? Armstrong and his team routinely broke the laws of France but most of that is beyond that statue of limitations.
> 
> One thing for sure, there will be some great parties.


Obviously, they can't ban him from participating, but they're trying to pressure him with the fact he is banned from racing so that he will pull out of the charity.

If the French are concerned with laws he broke, they can arrest him while he's there. But that's a separate issue from people trying to enforce a ban that isn't in place (namely, riding in charity events)


----------



## den bakker

Jwiffle said:


> Obviously, they can't ban him from participating, but they're trying to pressure him with the fact he is banned from racing so that he will pull out of the charity.
> 
> If the French are concerned with laws he broke, they can arrest him while he's there. But that's a separate issue from people trying to enforce a ban that isn't in place (namely, riding in charity events)


Just as Armstrong can do what he wants, so can Cookson say whatever he wants about it. That's not enforcing a ban not in place. 
Don't worry. Even without Lance there are still donations running concerning cancer.
Alpe d'Huzes 2015 | Bike Oisans


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> Obviously, they can't ban him from participating, but they're trying to pressure him with the fact he is banned from racing so that he will pull out of the charity.
> 
> If the French are concerned with laws he broke, they can arrest him while he's there. But that's a separate issue from people trying to enforce a ban that isn't in place (namely, riding in charity events)


You keep talking about "People trying to enforce a ban that isn't in place".....I don't see anyone trying to ban lance from riding his bike. 

You can pretend that lance did not damage the sport but he did. He is now using the event most associated with his fraud in a desperate attempt to reinsert himself into the public eye. 

Lance is free to ride the roads of France and we are free to point out what a jackass move it is


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You keep talking about "People trying to enforce a ban that isn't in place".....I don't see anyone trying to ban lance from riding his bike.
> 
> You can pretend that lance did not damage the sport but he did. He is now using the event most associated with his fraud in a desperate attempt to reinsert himself into the public eye.
> 
> Lance is free to ride the roads of France and we are free to point out what a jackass move it is


LOTS of people "damaged" the sport and they are still in the sport. HE is not using the event, Geoff is using the event and Geoff wants him there. Not everybody has such hatred against Lance that they can't see any good coming from him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> LOTS of people "damaged" the sport and they are still in the sport. HE is not using the event, Geoff is using the event and Geoff wants him there. Not everybody has such hatred against Lance that they can't see any good coming from him.


Is Lance the only doping fraud that nobody is allowed to criticize? 

Funny, I did not see you here crying about unfair treatment when Valverde was booed while winning Flèche Wallonne. Why were you not defending Vino when he was booed when he won Liège-Bastogne-Liège?

The lance groupies were so warm and welcoming to Floyd when he attended the Tour of California.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is Lance the only doping fraud that nobody is allowed to criticize?
> 
> Funny, I did not see you here crying about unfair treatment when Valverde was booed while winning Flèche Wallonne. Why were you not defending Vino when he was booed when he won Liège-Bastogne-Liège?
> 
> The lance groupies were so warm and welcoming to Floyd when he attended the Tour of California.


There is no doubt in my mind that Lance will have to endure the booing while he is riding for charity. He doesn't have to do it, but he will, to help raise money for charity and he should be given credit for that. You stated he's doing it just to get back in the public eye, but you are not in his head, you have no idea why he's agreed to do it. He doesn't need this ride to get back in the public eye, the media does that quite well. 

Cookson's comment was not called for and I lost a lot of respect for him over it. Raising money for any life threatening disease should only be commended.


----------



## Chaz955i

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is Lance the only doping fraud that nobody is allowed to criticize?
> 
> Funny, I did not see you here crying about unfair treatment when Valverde was booed while winning Flèche Wallonne. Why were you not defending Vino when he was booed when he won Liège-Bastogne-Liège?
> 
> The lance groupies were so warm and welcoming to Floyd when he attended the Tour of California.


What does this have to do with his comment about Cookson keeping his mouth shut?


----------



## BikeLayne

I hope Armstrong's presence brings in oodles of money for Cancer charity.


----------



## den bakker

Another example of cookson singling out Lance. 
Cycling: London tells riders involved in drug inquiry to stay away | Sport | The Guardian
"This will be a historic event, in the heart of one of the world's great cities, a fantastic opportunity for our sport," Cookson said, adding: "We really do not want to see this tarnished by a repeat of the doping scandals of 2006, so, frankly, we urge all those with involvement in the various investigations to stay away."

Cookson tells Verbruggen to resign - Portsmouth News


----------



## den bakker

Chaz955i said:


> What does this have to do with his comment about Cookson keeping his mouth shut?


probably the following from the OP: "And people say Armstrong was not a scapegoat."


----------



## Chaz955i

den bakker said:


> probably the following from the OP: "And people say Armstrong was not a scapegoat."


Got it, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> probably the following from the OP: "And people say Armstrong was not a scapegoat."


.....


----------



## BuenosAires

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is Lance the only doping fraud that nobody is allowed to criticize?
> 
> Funny, I did not see you here crying about unfair treatment when Valverde was booed while winning Flèche Wallonne. Why were you not defending Vino when he was booed when he won Liège-Bastogne-Liège?
> 
> The lance groupies were so warm and welcoming to Floyd when he attended the Tour of California.


Fleche Wallone and L-B-L are not charity events. Big difference.


----------



## love4himies

Further clarification on Cookson's remarks:



> The fundraising mission will see cyclists ride the route of the Tour one day ahead of the peloton, but UCI President Cookson wants Armstrong to reconsider.
> 
> “I’m sure that Geoff Thomas means well, but frankly, I think that’s completely inappropriate and disrespectful to the Tour, disrespectful to the current riders, and disrespectful to the UCI and the anti-doping community,” Cookson told the Sport Industry Breakfast Club in London.



Really, Brian???? And allowing known dopers to manage teams currently racing is not disrespectful?


----------



## Local Hero

No harm will come from Armstrong riding in some fondue. I'm worried that he'll will show up to the after-party all wasted.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that Lance will have to endure the booing while he is riding for charity. He doesn't have to do it, but he will, to help raise money for charity and he should be given credit for that. You stated he's doing it just to get back in the public eye, but you are not in his head, you have no idea why he's agreed to do it. He doesn't need this ride to get back in the public eye, the media does that quite well.
> 
> Cookson's comment was not called for and I lost a lot of respect for him over it. Raising money for any life threatening disease should only be commended.


Ahhh, yes. The Cancer shield. Nobody is allowed to question Lance as long as he pretends to be raising money for cancer. Works all the time

No need to climb in Lance's head to know his agenda, he has already told people it. He detailed it to Juliet Macur, even said it would only take 6 months to a year to rebuild his reputation.......how is his plan working so far?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahhh, yes. The Cancer shield. Nobody is allowed to question Lance as long as he pretends to be raising money for cancer. Works all the time
> 
> No need to climb in Lance's head to know his agenda, he has already told people it. He detailed it to Juliet Macur, even said it would only take 6 months to a year to rebuild his reputation.......how is his plan working so far?


What's Armstrong's master plan? Just what evil is he up to now?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> Another example of cookson singling out Lance.
> Cycling: London tells riders involved in drug inquiry to stay away | Sport | The Guardian
> "This will be a historic event, in the heart of one of the world's great cities, a fantastic opportunity for our sport," Cookson said, adding: "We really do not want to see this tarnished by a repeat of the doping scandals of 2006, so, frankly, we urge all those with involvement in the various investigations to stay away."
> 
> Cookson tells Verbruggen to resign - Portsmouth News


Cookson is such a mean guy, calling out those dopers. Telling them to stay home. Whaaaa


----------



## sir duke

I'm all for it...

Think about it, Lance Armstrong....riding his bicycle.....around France....in July....WITHOUT PEDS.... 

Never thought I'd see that day... Go Tex!


----------



## Ryder's

Maybe he can drive the support vehicle... Meh nevermind bad idea.


----------



## sir duke

Ryder's said:


> Maybe he can drive the support vehicle... Meh nevermind bad idea.


Is he bringing Motoman? Cool...


----------



## Ryder's

Hopefully for the sake of the French driving public he brings his baby momma along for the ride.


----------



## mpre53

love4himies said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that Lance will have to endure the booing while he is riding for charity. He doesn't have to do it, but he will, to help raise money for charity and he should be given credit for that. You stated he's doing it just to get back in the public eye, but you are not in his head, you have no idea why he's agreed to do it. He doesn't need this ride to get back in the public eye, the media does that quite well.
> 
> Cookson's comment was not called for and I lost a lot of respect for him over it. Raising money for any life threatening disease should only be commended.


Most of these rides raise money from the riders themselves, who get contributions from their friends, families, and often their employers via matching funds. The Pan Mass Challenge, one of the more successful of these in the US, which has raised over $35 million for the Dana-Farber institute for pediatric cancer over the years, has a fundraising threshold in excess of $4000 nowadays, which a rider is on the hook for even if he or she falls short of that fundraising target. I need to know more before I give him props for this. Is Geoff waiving any fundraising minimum for Lance? Giving him an appearance fee? Paying his travel expenses? Did Lance write a generous check to the foundation? These rides don't make any money from people who turn out to watch, in most cases, or by selling TV rights. They are mostly rider funded. Getting exposure for the event might not help raise a dime. I'd need to know more about the arrangements here.


----------



## Flexnuphill

Yeah he's a scumbag in a few peoples minds, with very good reason. I think if he's willing to use what shred of infamy he has left to raise money for a good cause, what the hell.


----------



## love4himies

mpre53 said:


> Most of these rides raise money from the riders themselves, who get contributions from their friends, families, and often their employers via matching funds. The Pan Mass Challenge, one of the more successful of these in the US, which has raised over $35 million for the Dana-Farber institute for pediatric cancer over the years, has a fundraising threshold in excess of $4000 nowadays, which a rider is on the hook for even if he or she falls short of that fundraising target. I need to know more before I give him props for this. Is Geoff waiving any fundraising minimum for Lance? Giving him an appearance fee? Paying his travel expenses? Did Lance write a generous check to the foundation? These rides don't make any money from people who turn out to watch, in most cases, or by selling TV rights. They are mostly rider funded. Getting exposure for the event might not help raise a dime. I'd need to know more about the arrangements here.


Fair enough. 

It could be that Lance brings in millions for the charity or it could be that the charity looses money because of Lance's participation. But Cookson is probably not privy to the agreement so to say he shouldn't do it and it's not respectful is not called for in my book. This should not be about the Tour, it should be about raising money.


----------



## CrankyCarbon

I thought Lance was a golfer ? whodda thunk :aureola:==> Lance Armstrong: cheating at golf would leave me heartbroken forever | Sport | The Guardian


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> This should not be about the Tour, it should be about raising money.


would there be a tour without the fund raiser? 
would the be a fund raiser without the tour?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> This should not be about the Tour, it should be about raising money.


You have a point, it should not be about the Tour. Instead of riding the Tour route lance should organize something in Texas.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mpre53 said:


> Most of these rides raise money from the riders themselves, who get contributions from their friends, families, and often their employers via matching funds. The Pan Mass Challenge, one of the more successful of these in the US, which has raised over $35 million for the Dana-Farber institute for pediatric cancer over the years, has a fundraising threshold in excess of $4000 nowadays, which a rider is on the hook for even if he or she falls short of that fundraising target. I need to know more before I give him props for this. Is Geoff waiving any fundraising minimum for Lance? Giving him an appearance fee? Paying his travel expenses? Did Lance write a generous check to the foundation? These rides don't make any money from people who turn out to watch, in most cases, or by selling TV rights. They are mostly rider funded. Getting exposure for the event might not help raise a dime. I'd need to know more about the arrangements here.


Good points. It would not be the first time Armstrong pocketed money donors thought was going to charity. 

LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION FRAUD [UPDATED] - CNN iReport

https://translate.google.com/transl...ance-livestrong-penge-i-egen-lomme&edit-text=


----------



## BikeLayne

CrankyCarbon said:


> I thought Lance was a golfer ? whodda thunk :aureola:==> Lance Armstrong: cheating at golf would leave me heartbroken forever | Sport | The Guardian



I'm going to play golf on Friday and plan on cheating every chance I get. Then when I get home I am going to write myself a nice fat check.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Good points. It would not be the first time Armstrong pocketed money donors thought was going to charity.
> 
> LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION FRAUD [UPDATED] - CNN iReport
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...ance-livestrong-penge-i-egen-lomme&edit-text=


Hmmmm, I guess somebody should familiarize themselves with CRA's charity receipt rules before they comment. As the update states, they could not issue a tax receipt for a full amount of an event if there was some benefit to the donor. This is the norm (as it is the law) and is well known by anybody who regularly attends charity dinners here in Canada.



> UPDATE: After this iReport was posted, CNN received a statement from Calgary energy executive John Dielwart, one of the tour organizers, refuting many of the iReporter's claims.
> 
> With regard to participants not receiving a tax receipt for their entire donation, Dielwart said, 'that had nothing to do with Lance. The tax rules do not allow receipts to be issued for the entire donation amount if tangible benefits were received by the donor. Events like this do not occur for free. Every rider received rider kits which included cycling gear and other gifts. The breakfasts and dinner are tangible benefits. Finally, the costs of supporting the ride with aid stations, medical personnel, transportation, etc. are also deemed to be benefits. The Tour of Courage Society determined that under the Revenus Canada guidelines, only $25,000 of the $35,000 donation qualified for a tax receipt. Every rider was informed about this in advance and did not have to participate if they didn't like those terms. To suggest Lance pocketed the balance as Mr. Leach does is ridiculous.'
> 
> Dielwart acknowledged that Armstrong was paid to participate, 'but it was certainly nowhere near the amount claimed,' he said in the comments below. You can read more of his response in the comments under this iReport.
> 
> The Calgary Tour of Courage Society has raised $6 million to sponsor a research chair in Molecular Epidemiology at the University of Calgary / Tom Baker Cancer Center.
> 
> 'Lance and the Livestrong Foundation are iconic institutions,' Dielwart wrote. 'I have watched the man interact with cancer patients, survivors and their families in hospital cancer wards, on the road and in convention halls. I have never witnessed anything but care, compassion and empathy from Lance towards these fellow members of the club nobody wants to be part of. This is not the same person we see on the bike in competition. It is not for me to opine on allegations brought against Lance regarding his cycling career. However, if you asked anyone around the world who has received support from the Livestrong Foundation if they care about that, I'm sure the answer would be no.'
> - dsashin, CNN iReport producer


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Cookson is such a mean guy, calling out those dopers. Telling them to stay home. Whaaaa


Whoa there Captain 180, aren't you the one who spent several months hiding behind the letter of the law, saying we can't get after past dopers because they were not subject to WADA and blah blah blah? But not that it comes to punishing Armstrong and trying to keep him from an unsanctioned event, you're all for it. 

True colors...shining through.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Whoa there Captain 180, aren't you the one who spent several months hiding behind the letter of the law, saying we can't get after past dopers because they were not subject to WADA and blah blah blah? But not that it comes to punishing Armstrong and trying to keep him from an unsanctioned event, you're all for it.
> 
> True colors...shining through.


Whoa there captain nonsense. 

The ProTour code of Ethics at the time was clear



> No team shall allow a rider to compete while under investigation in any doping affair


.

This is what kept OP riders out of the 2006 Tour. Cookson was reminding teams of the rules.

Instead of inventing some nonsense about Cookson trying to keep Lance from riding an unsanctioned event how about reading what he actually said



> "Lance Armstrong can ride his bike around France as often as he likes. It's got nothing to do with me or the UCI."
> 
> “I’m sure that Geoff Thomas means well, but frankly, I think that’s completely inappropriate and disrespectful to the Tour, disrespectful to the current riders, and disrespectful to the UCI and the anti-doping community,”
> 
> “I’m not critical of people trying to raise funds for charity, let’s be clear. But I think maybe Lance could find a better way of continuing his fundraising efforts than this.


----------



## sir duke

love4himies said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> It could be that Lance brings in millions for the charity or it could be that the charity looses money because of Lance's participation. But Cookson is probably not privy to the agreement so to say he shouldn't do it and it's not respectful is not called for in my book. This should not be about the Tour, it should be about raising money.


Whatever it's about, it's gonna be about Lance. Raising money was about Lance.. Oprah was about Lance, talking to CIRC was about Lance.... See a pattern?


----------



## love4himies

sir duke said:


> Whatever it's about, it's gonna be about Lance. Raising money was about Lance.. Oprah was about Lance, talking to CIRC was about Lance.... See a pattern?


Yes I agree that the media made it about Lance. It's Cookson's remarks that I have a problem with. I really don't think it was called for his opinion that Lance riding for charity is disrespectful to the Tour when he knows full well there are proven dopers RIDING in the Tour. To me the important thing is that the charity raises money and Cookson should not be discouraging it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Yes I agree that the media made it about Lance. It's Cookson's remarks that I have a problem with. I really don't think it was called for his opinion that Lance riding for charity is disrespectful to the Tour when he knows full well there are proven dopers RIDING in the Tour. To me the important thing is that the charity raises money and Cookson should not be discouraging it.


Ahh yes, the cancer shield. Livestrong exploited that for years. 

At what point is it OK to express an opinion on Lance? Are all fraudsters above questioning as long as they give to charity or just Lance?


----------



## Cyclist69

This is my opinion...

Whatever has happend with Armstrong, his cycling days can't be over. Life doesn't work that way.

One does not make such waves in life to just go out with a whisper. His journey isn't complete and he still has the potential to inspire.

Did he FU*k up? Yes!
Did he lose everything? Yes!
Did he pay the price? Yes!

Let him try to make amends.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Lance damaged the image of the Tour and the UCI, so it's understandable that Cookson would not want him participating in an event even remotely tied to them. For him not to say something would be more telling. I would expect him to say the same about Floyd or the Chicken or Ricco... That said, Lance is the biggest name related to the Tour since Merckx, and the relationship does not help the image of the Tour.

Lance can ride his bike anytime he wants to, just not in events sanctioned by WADA-associated sport associations.


----------



## Cyclist69

Alaska Mike said:


> Lance damaged the image of the Tour and the UCI, so it's understandable that Cookson would not want him participating in an event even remotely tied to them. For him not to say something would be more telling. I would expect him to say the same about Floyd or the Chicken or Ricco... That said, Lance is the biggest name related to the Tour since Merckx, and the relationship does not help the image of the Tour.
> 
> Lance can ride his bike anytime he wants to, just not in events sanctioned by WADA-associated sport associations.


I hear ya...

Talk about being uninspired. I did see "Slaying the Badger" and I didn't really see a code of conducted that was so inspiring. 

LeMond may have finally won because he had to overcome every double deal in the book. 

Anyway, Lance Armstrong's days may be over for the Tour de France but, he can still achieve great things if people would just learn to forgive.


----------



## sir duke

love4himies said:


> Yes I agree that the media made it about Lance. It's Cookson's remarks that I have a problem with. I really don't think it was called for his opinion that Lance riding for charity is disrespectful to the Tour when he knows full well there are proven dopers RIDING in the Tour. To me the important thing is that the charity raises money and Cookson should not be discouraging it.


So why would he want the biggest proven doper as a distraction? 

Cookson isn't against anyone riding for charity and he said as much in his statement. You make him out to be some heartless, small-minded administrator who puts the image of the UCI above helping suffering. I don't think that's the case. He merely gave his opinion about Lance riding this particular event. 
It's the old 'it's for a good cause' excuse that Lance has resorted to on several occasions as mitigation for his cheating and lies, and to be honest, that's about the only defense he has: ' I cheated because..... cancer!' Unbeatable as always, only a heartless churl etc, etc.

What was Cookson supposed to say, that it would be a nice touch if the biggest cheat in the history of the race should return to the scene of his crimes and remind us of just how unfairly he's been treated by the world? Because you can bet your boots that's how Lance would like to spin this.
What's to stop Armstrong just turning it down, handing over some cash commensurate with his wealth and saying 'thanks, but no thanks'? He could tweet that he'd been approached, reveal that he'd declined the invite, say something positive about helping the charity and stay classy for once.
It's been pointed out _ad nauseam_ by countless commentators that Armstrong is obsessive about controlling the narrative where he his concerned. Thomas may think he's using Lance and I'm guessing Armstrong is OK with that perception, but we are talking about someone who sees media manipulation as a means to a very selfish end. Remember who cynically used cancer suffering to try to paint Paul Kimmage as some hard-hearted, sh!t-stirring journo who wanted to trivialise charity work in order to get some cheap publicity? Has Cookson ever done or said anything so low?


----------



## Alaska Mike

Cyclist69 said:


> I hear ya...
> 
> Talk about being uninspired. I did see "Slaying the Badger" and I didn't really see a code of conducted that was so inspiring.
> 
> LeMond may have finally won because he had to overcome every double deal in the book.
> 
> Anyway, Lance Armstrong's days may be over for the Tour de France but, he can still achieve great things if people would just learn to forgive.


It's not about a code of conduct, it's about public perception and decreasing the value of an asset through a negative association. 

Doping is cheating (not following the established rules). 
Lance was the "greatest TDF champion" (in public perception). 
Lance doped (why doesn't matter).
The "greatest TDF champion" was a cheater.
Doesn't do much for the image of the sport, does it?

Why would the UCI want to allow him a way back in, especially when public opinion of him is so low? From their standpoint, from a business perspective, what do they gain? When professional cycling is finding it difficult to fund professional teams on multiple levels, why potentially drive away even more sponsors? It just does not make sense.

If Lance would go away, I would be more than happy to forget him.


----------



## Cyclist69

Alaska Mike said:


> It's not about a code of conduct, it's about public perception and decreasing the value of an asset through a negative association.
> 
> Doping is cheating (not following the established rules).
> Lance was the "greatest TDF champion" (in public perception).
> Lance doped (why doesn't matter).
> The "greatest TDF champion" was a cheater.
> Doesn't do much for the image of the sport, does it?
> 
> Why would the UCI want to allow him a way back in, especially when public opinion of him is so low? From their standpoint, from a business perspective, what do they gain? When professional cycling is finding it difficult to fund professional teams on multiple levels, why potentially drive away even more sponsors? It just does not make sense.
> 
> If Lance would go away, I would be more than happy to forget him.



Again, I hear ya.

I definitely don't want to get into a argument.


----------



## den bakker

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahh yes, the cancer shield. Livestrong exploited that for years.


https://youtu.be/Zad68VOxr8g?t=42s


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> https://youtu.be/Zad68VOxr8g?t=42s


Cancer Shield Activated!

https://youtu.be/ph6Gd2Cg4gc


----------



## love4himies

sir duke said:


> So why would he want the biggest proven doper as a distraction?
> 
> Cookson isn't against anyone riding for charity and he said as much in his statement. You make him out to be some heartless, small-minded administrator who puts the image of the UCI above helping suffering. I don't think that's the case. He merely gave his opinion about Lance riding this particular event.
> It's the old 'it's for a good cause' excuse that Lance has resorted to on several occasions as mitigation for his cheating and lies, and to be honest, that's about the only defense he has: ' I cheated because..... cancer!' Unbeatable as always, only a heartless churl etc, etc.
> 
> What was Cookson supposed to say, that it would be a nice touch if the biggest cheat in the history of the race should return to the scene of his crimes and remind us of just how unfairly he's been treated by the world? Because you can bet your boots that's how Lance would like to spin this.
> What's to stop Armstrong just turning it down, handing over some cash commensurate with his wealth and saying 'thanks, but no thanks'? *He could tweet that he'd been approached, reveal that he'd declined the invite, say something positive about helping the charity and stay classy for once.*
> It's been pointed out _ad nauseam_ by countless commentators that Armstrong is obsessive about controlling the narrative where he his concerned. Thomas may think he's using Lance and I'm guessing Armstrong is OK with that perception, but we are talking about someone who sees media manipulation as a means to a very selfish end. Remember who cynically used cancer suffering to try to paint Paul Kimmage as some hard-hearted, sh!t-stirring journo who wanted to trivialise charity work in order to get some cheap publicity? Has Cookson ever done or said anything so low?


Yes, some people would think that was classy of him, but you will get others that will be of the opinion that he doesn't really care about cancer because if he did he would do an event to raise money. 

I am of the opinion that you do what *good* you can, even if you have sinned in the past. Nobody's perfect and everybody has sinned. Some of have sinned more, some less.

Cookson is in a public position who can influence others. Because of that, I believe he should be very careful to choose his words of what he states publicly. He may be of the opinion that it is wrong for Lance to do the charity ride, but he could have clearly posed his response in a more positive note.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> I am of the opinion that you do what good you can, even if you have sinned in the past. Nobody's perfect and everybody has sinned. Some of have sinned more, some less.


If I've borrowed money from you 10 times and never paid back. would you borrow me once more?


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> If I've borrowed money from you 10 times and never paid back. would you borrow me once more?


Would I _lend_ you more money you mean?

That would depend on who you are, your circumstances in life and what you do with the money I lend you.

Giving money to an addict for them to blow on their addiction is NOT A GOOD THING. If you are an abused woman who has fled an abusive relationship who has kids to feed and is doing her best to keep a roof over her head, then yes, I will continue to help her. She can pay me back when she can.

You are missing the "GOOD", in my post. I'll go back into my post and highlight it for easier reading


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Would I _lend_ you more money you mean?
> 
> That would depend on who you are, your circumstances in life and what you do with the money I lend you.
> 
> Giving money to an addict for them to blow on their addiction is NOT A GOOD THING. If you are an abused woman who has fled an abusive relationship who has kids to feed and is doing her best to keep a roof over her head, then yes, I will continue to help her. She can pay me back when she can.
> 
> You are missing the "GOOD", in my post. I'll go back into my post and highlight it for easier reading


yeah lend. 
same story I provided the last 10 times. same promises paying back as the last 10 times. would you expect to see those money? It's not for hookers and blow. this time. promise.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> yeah lend.
> same story I provided the last 10 times. same promises paying back as the last 10 times. would you expect to see those money? It's not for hookers and blow. this time. promise.


OK, I see where you are going with this, but once again it depends on the person and the circumstances. But that person who lied to me 9 times before wouldn't have gotten the money the second time. :wink5:. Just like I wouldn't trust Lance as far as I could throw him to ride clean in a race. 

But it has nothing to do with Brian's comments as it is Geoff's charity ride that Geoff invited Lance to participate.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> OK, I see where you are going with this, but once again it depends on the person and the circumstances. But that person who lied to me 9 times before wouldn't have gotten the money the second time. :wink5:. Just like I wouldn't trust Lance as far as I could throw him to ride clean in a race.
> 
> But it has nothing to do with Brian's comments as it is Geoff's charity ride that Geoff invited Lance to participate.


you trust LA to speak truth about cancer fighting? the guy surviving cancer and barely making it out of the bed before back to the old habits. much like a smoker smoking through the throat.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> you trust LA to speak truth about cancer fighting? the guy surviving cancer and barely making it out of the bed before back to the old habits. much like a smoker smoking through the throat.


What's Lance speaking the truth got to do with it?


----------



## jarbiker

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I must have missed this part, who is trying to ban him from riding his bike in France? The police? Armstrong and his team routinely broke the laws of France but most of that is beyond that statue of limitations.
> 
> One thing for sure, there will be some great parties.



and I bet he will recover quickly


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> What's Lance speaking the truth got to do with it?


that he does it for the charity.


----------



## den bakker

jarbiker said:


> and I bet he will recover quickly


Helps when you don't have to wait for a taxi when tipsy.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> that he does it for the charity.


So? What if he does it just for the exercise? Isn't the important thing that it helps raise money?


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> So? What if he does it just for the exercise? Isn't the important thing that it helps raise money?


will it? and how much will be detracted from the ASO fundraising by this farce? who wins?


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> will it? and how much will be detracted from the ASO fundraising by this farce? who wins?


Will it help, don't know, could hinder. As for the ASO fundraiser, I guess people will donate to what ever cause is closest to their hearts. 

But once again, that has nothing to do with Brian's comments? The charity is a good cause and he shouldn't have publicly criticized the participants.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> But once again, that has nothing to do with Brian's comments? The charity is a good cause and he shouldn't have publicly criticized the participants.


Free speech works just fine. if there's an actual backlash against his comments he will be removed from power. But given his comments are rather civil compared to most I've seen he is probably ok.


----------



## thighmaster

In Europe the whole doping thing is not like it is here. They all know and will only show some discomfort when someone is caught, but like all the one who have, they remain heros. Think pantani, Johan museuw, boonen, miilar--just as long as they don't throw anyone under the bus.


----------



## Big-foot

I recently learned just how deeply Lance harmed our sport. I organize a number of cycling events and a new proposed race will hopefully use a high school as its venue. In procuring facilities use I had to make a proposal and presentation to the school board. One board member expressed concern about having "drug taking Lance Armstrong wannabes" on campus. Another board member replied "That's right! I hadn't thought of that," which triggered a buzz among the parents in attendance.

Yup. It seems that to some of the mainstream public bicycle racers have all been painted with a broad brush of Lance-guilt.


----------



## Local Hero

Big-foot said:


> I recently learned just how deeply Lance harmed our sport. I organize a number of cycling events and a new proposed race will hopefully use a high school as its venue. In procuring facilities use I had to make a proposal and presentation to the school board. One board member expressed concern about having "drug taking Lance Armstrong wannabes" on campus. Another board member replied "That's right! I hadn't thought of that," which triggered a buzz among the parents in attendance.
> 
> Yup. It seems that to some of the mainstream public bicycle racers have all been painted with a broad brush of Lance-guilt.


Chances are that board member also hates bicyclists because they blow through stop signs and slow down traffic by riding in the middle of the lane. That board member may be very passionate about cyclists carrying insurance and wearing helmets. You know, a typical a-hole.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Chances are that board member also hates bicyclists because they blow through stop signs and slow down traffic by riding in the middle of the lane. That board member may be very passionate about cyclists carrying insurance and wearing helmets. You know, a typical a-hole.


Fixie riding hipsters take EPO?

I must have missed the part in the Reasoned Decision about Lance blowing through stop signs


----------



## BikeLayne

Big-foot said:


> I recently learned just how deeply Lance harmed our sport. I organize a number of cycling events and a new proposed race will hopefully use a high school as its venue. In procuring facilities use I had to make a proposal and presentation to the school board. One board member expressed concern about having "drug taking Lance Armstrong wannabes" on campus. Another board member replied "That's right! I hadn't thought of that," which triggered a buzz among the parents in attendance.
> 
> Yup. It seems that to some of the mainstream public bicycle racers have all been painted with a broad brush of Lance-guilt.


 Of course the football players would never use steroids because they want to excel and get a football scholarship.


----------



## love4himies

Big-foot said:


> I recently learned just how deeply Lance harmed our sport. I organize a number of cycling events and a new proposed race will hopefully use a high school as its venue. In procuring facilities use I had to make a proposal and presentation to the school board. One board member expressed concern about having "drug taking Lance Armstrong wannabes" on campus. Another board member replied "That's right! I hadn't thought of that," which triggered a buzz among the parents in attendance.
> 
> Yup. It seems that to some of the mainstream public bicycle racers have all been painted with a broad brush of Lance-guilt.


Wonder if their kids play football?

The parents are obviously ignorant to what drugs Lance was taking. As hubby would say, what a bunch of numbties.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> Chances are that board member also hates bicyclists because they blow through stop signs and slow down traffic by riding in the middle of the lane. That board member may be very passionate about cyclists carrying insurance and wearing helmets. You know, a typical a-hole.


Or some dad fearing their their sons will like it and start wearing spandex.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Fixie riding hipsters take EPO?
> 
> I must have missed the part in the Reasoned Decision about Lance blowing through stop signs


Did you mean to respond to my post? What you said seems pretty unrelated. 

Anyway, I have a question since you hate all things Armstrong: Do you actually support what this board member said? 

Do you think that hating Armstrong is a good reason to keep cycling away from students?


----------



## den bakker

Big-foot said:


> I recently learned just how deeply Lance harmed our sport. I organize a number of cycling events and a new proposed race will hopefully use a high school as its venue. In procuring facilities use I had to make a proposal and presentation to the school board. One board member expressed concern about having "drug taking Lance Armstrong wannabes" on campus. Another board member replied "That's right! I hadn't thought of that," which triggered a buzz among the parents in attendance.
> 
> Yup. It seems that to some of the mainstream public bicycle racers have all been painted with a broad brush of Lance-guilt.


well it was all cute early 2000s when people shouted "go lance"..... 
what comes around.


----------



## mambo

I'd happily build him a bike to ride the event if its for charity. Just about all pro racers were doping at the time, he was just more arrogant and nastier about the way he defended himself and got his payback for that attitude.


----------



## sir duke

Cyclist69 said:


> This is my opinion...
> 
> Whatever has happend with Armstrong, his cycling days can't be over. Life doesn't work that way.
> 
> One does not make such waves in life to just go out with a whisper. His journey isn't complete and he still has the potential to inspire.
> 
> Did he FU*k up? Yes!
> Did he lose everything? Yes!
> Did he pay the price? Yes!
> 
> Let him try to make amends.


He can make amends by paying back the monies he fraudulently obtained by doping to win and then lying about it under deposition. He's cool about riding his bike for cancer, not so forthcoming about doing good if that means giving back what he stole. And yes, he stole it!


----------



## Local Hero

Cooksons alternative responses:

"That's outside of our jurisdiction and left to the discretion of the charity event promoters. Armstrong can take comfort in the knowledge that neither WADA or the UCI plans on testing at this charity event." 

or

"We don't comment on charity rides. But I will say that for Armstrong's sake, I hope he's finally clean."


----------



## mambo

Everybody deserves a second chance


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mambo said:


> Everybody deserves a second chance


Yeah, they should let Bernie Madoff start up another hedge fund, after all he gave millions to charity and anyone who raises money for charity should never be questioned


----------



## Local Hero

mambo said:


> Everybody deserves a second chance


Armstrong got a second chance when he beat cancer.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, they should let Bernie Madoff *start up another hedge fund*, after all he gave millions to charity and anyone who raises money for charity should never be questioned


Yeah, like Lance is *racing* the Tour.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Cookson wouldn't have felt the need to comment if it was a ride not related to a UCI event. There's plenty of cancer rides out there for Lance to ride like that.

Again, it's about protecting the brand, and completely understandable. They need to slowly break the link between Lance and the Tour in the public's perception (a tall order in the US).


----------



## atpjunkie

Big-foot said:


> I recently learned just how deeply Lance harmed our sport. I organize a number of cycling events and a new proposed race will hopefully use a high school as its venue. In procuring facilities use I had to make a proposal and presentation to the school board. One board member expressed concern about having "drug taking Lance Armstrong wannabes" on campus. Another board member replied "That's right! I hadn't thought of that," which triggered a buzz among the parents in attendance.
> 
> Yup. It seems that to some of the mainstream public bicycle racers have all been painted with a broad brush of Lance-guilt.


but I'm sure they are fine with all the drug taking NFL, MLB and NBA wannabes


----------



## spade2you

atpjunkie said:


> but I'm sure they are fine with all the drug taking NFL, MLB and NBA wannabes


Hush, Armstrong apologist!!!

Anyone wondering if simply mentioning Armstrong is a straight up publicity stunt? Tons of article reads and threads started whenever Armstrong is mentioned.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It appears not everyone is excited about Lance's participation. 



> she did not wish to be associated with ‘the most tainted man in sport’.





> ‘You know what, I haven’t seen one positive thing about this.’”


Sole female participant in Tour de France charity ride pulls out due to late addition of Lance Armstrong | road.cc


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears not everyone is excited about Lance's participation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sole female participant in Tour de France charity ride pulls out due to late addition of Lance Armstrong | road.cc


You forgot this quote:



> She said that it was when the news broke that Nike would be sponsoring Justin Gatlin [who has returned to sprinting after bans for positive drug tests] that she realised she didn’t want to be involved.


----------



## the_rouleur

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, they should let Bernie Madoff start up another hedge fund, after all he gave millions to charity and anyone who raises money for charity should never be questioned


Yes, we should all compare a guy that doped to win bike races, with a guy that was charged with near on a dozen felonies and received a 150 year prison term.

That hate runs strong.


----------



## Jackhammer

the_rouleur said:


> Yes, we should all compare a guy that doped to win bike races, with a guy that was charged with near on a dozen felonies and received a 150 year prison term.
> 
> That hate runs strong.


Hate? Preventing Armstrong from participating in a charity ride is a much lesser sanction than a 150 year prison term.

Armstrong is lucky he's not doing prison time.


----------



## the_rouleur

Jackhammer said:


> Hate? Preventing Armstrong from participating in a charity ride is a much lesser sanction than a 150 year prison term.


I'm not questioning which is more punitive. That is obvious.



Jackhammer said:


> Armstrong is lucky he's not doing prison time.


For what?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

the_rouleur said:


> I'm not questioning which is more punitive. That is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> For what?


Nah, you are just trying to twist what was written. 



> anyone who raises money for charity should never be questioned?


When does it become OK to question Lance's actions? When he wastes millions of $$$ of donor funds on parties, promoting his personal brand, attacking critics, lobbying to defund USADA, etc. is it OK to question it or should we just ignore this because he told you he "Did a lot of good"?

As for Lance's criminal actions. Hard to read the Reasoned Decision and not see that he did some criminal actions. No wonder he is still the target of an active investigation for obstruction, witness tampering and intimidation

Lance Armstrong Under Investigation for Obstruction, Witness Tampering and Intimidation - ABC News


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Yeah, like Lance is *racing* the Tour.


Who said he was? 

In a desperate attempt to remain relevant he is returning to the scene of his fraud.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who said he was?
> 
> In a desperate attempt to remain relevant he is returning to the scene of his fraud.


If you are going to compare Madoff to STARTING UP A HEDGE fund, then you should compare Armstrong to RACING a bike race.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> If you are going to compare Madoff to STARTING UP A HEDGE fund, then you should compare Armstrong to RACING a bike race.


You are welcome to play the semantics nonsense but most can see what lance is doing. Trying to insert himself into the public eye again by crashing the scene of some of his most epic fraud. 

Remember this gem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfV4XxKXrA

The lie filled press conferences, harassment of Journalists, preferential treatment by the UCI, Preferential treatment by drug testers. Some of lance's biggest frauds were off the bike


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to play the semantics nonsense but most can see what lance is doing. Trying to insert himself into the public eye again by crashing the scene of some of his most epic fraud.
> 
> Remember this gem?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfV4XxKXrA
> 
> The lie filled press conferences, harassment of Journalists, preferential treatment by the UCI, Preferential treatment by drug testers. Some of lance's biggest frauds were off the bike


Or he could be just doing something that is dear to his heart. Raising money for cancer. I'm pretty sure this is not the attention he or his family wants. 

Preferential treatment by UCI and drug testers is their responsibility, not Lance's. The whole era was corrupt, not just Lance. So stop trying to imply that all that was wrong during that time was because of Lance. Geesh, you would think that he was some kind of God that cast a spell on every donor to his charity, the UCI, and the jurors that ruled in his favour.


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> Or he could be just doing something that is dear to his heart.


He's such a nice young man!



love4himies said:


> Raising money for cancer. I'm pretty sure this is not the attention he or his family wants.



A loving family man too! 



love4himies said:


> Preferential treatment by UCI and drug testers is their responsibility, not Lance's.



He's not responsible for bribes and threats?



love4himies said:


> The whole era was corrupt, not just Lance. So stop trying to imply that all that was wrong during that time was because of Lance.


Poor "Lance" was just the same as everyone else and got singled out..




love4himies said:


> Geesh, you would think that he was some kind of God that cast a spell


What's your excuse?




love4himies said:


> on every donor to his charity, the UCI,


Cult of personality. Maybe the good Doctor is just performing a public service trying to de-program the gullible....and this is what he gets for his efforts, geesh!



love4himies said:


> and the jurors that ruled in his favour.


"Lance" was acquitted? I missed that. Was that in Sally Jenkins third "Lance" book?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Or he could be just doing something that is dear to his heart. Raising money for cancer. I'm pretty sure this is not the attention he or his family wants.
> 
> Preferential treatment by UCI and drug testers is their responsibility, not Lance's. The whole era was corrupt, not just Lance. So stop trying to imply that all that was wrong during that time was because of Lance. Geesh, you would think that he was some kind of God that cast a spell on every donor to his charity, the UCI, and the jurors that ruled in his favour.


Yup, he is doing something dear to his heart, using the charity scam to draw attention to himself. 

Again with the "all Lance's fault" Strawman.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfV4XxKXrA


Inspirational!


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> Doctor Falsetti said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfV4XxKXrA
> /QUOTE]Inspirational!
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup, he is doing something dear to his heart, *using the charity scam to draw attention to himself*.


Proof, a link would be nice?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Proof, a link would be nice?


Really? You need proof of the cancer shield?


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? You need proof of the cancer shield?


Nope, that he is indeed using this charity ride as a scam to draw attention to himself.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Nope, that he is indeed using this charity ride as a scam to draw attention to himself.


Why would he change what worked so well for over a decade? 

Give there is a long, documented, history of Armstrong using the cancer shield to his advantage please share a link that proves THIS time is different.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why would he change what worked so well for over a decade?
> 
> Give there is a long, documented, history of Armstrong using the cancer shield to his advantage please share a link that proves THIS time is different.


I'm not saying he _*ISN'T*_, I'm just saying he _maynot_. Only Lance knows for sure.

What I said: 


> Or he *could* be just doing something that is dear to his heart.


. I will admit, however, that I do believe he does care about cancer and to help those who have it. 

If a repeat bank robber walks into a bank, does that mean he's there to rob the bank? Or could he actually have legitimate business to do? Until he robs the bank, nobody but the robber knows for sure.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why would he change what worked so well for over a decade?
> 
> Give there is a long, documented, history of Armstrong using the cancer shield to his advantage please share a link that proves THIS time is different.


The most important thing is that we never move forward, we never forgive, and we never forget that Armstrong is incapable of doing good.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> The most important thing is that we never move forward, we never forgive, and we never forget that Armstrong is incapable of doing good.


Who said that? 

Of course Lance should raise money, put on events, etc.......But crashing the Tour is classless. Plenty of other things he can do but those would not draw the attention he craves


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who said that?
> 
> Of course Lance should raise money, put on events, etc.......But crashing the Tour is classless.Plenty of other things he can do but those would not draw the attention he craves


On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to pretend to know another person's motivations in life?


----------



## Local Hero

https://www.strava.com/activities/280373881

rofl @ 2nd fastest time on Sir Lance a Loser - S Turn


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to pretend to know another person's motivations in life?


Interesting point. It's not necessary to have motive but it helps.

Corpus delicti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks


----------



## Local Hero

Jackhammer said:


> Interesting point. It's not necessary to have motive but it helps.
> 
> Corpus delicti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Thanks


Corpus delicti (Latin: "body of crime"). Fancy. What is an appropriate punishment for the crime of unauthorized _charity riding_?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to pretend to know another person's motivations in life?


As usual you try to make this personal. 

You are welcome to pretend you know Lance's motivation. You can pretend that this time Lance has changed. He is the new Lance. Forget about the last 20 years........Just don't expect everyone ignore his long history and think he has suddenly changed.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual you try to make this personal.
> 
> You are welcome to pretend you know Lance's motivation. You can pretend that this time Lance has changed. He is the new Lance. Forget about the last 20 years........Just don't expect everyone ignore his long history and think he has suddenly changed.


What long history? His interest in raising money to assist cancer patients and their families? That it continues today?


----------



## Local Hero

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to pretend to know another person's motivations in life?


Doctor Falsetti said:


> *As usual you try to make this personal*.
> 
> *You* are welcome to pretend *you* know Lance's motivation. *You* can pretend that this time Lance has changed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> What long history? His interest in raising money to assist cancer patients and their families? That it continues today?


His long history of using the Cancer shield to promote himself and attack anyone who questions the myth.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> His long history of using the Cancer shield to promote himself and attack anyone who questions the myth.


Attacking the "myth" due to his narcissistic personality goes without saying. BUT he used cancer as a defense against those who questioned he doped which is separate from caring about a cause and doing fundraising for it. I truly believe he cares about cancer victims (in his own way) and he loves his kids, albeit a bad role model.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> His long history of using the Cancer shield to promote himself and attack anyone who questions the myth.


What are Armstrong's top three most redeeming traits as a human being?


----------



## robt57

Local Hero said:


> What are Armstrong's top three most redeeming traits as a human being?


Like.. on a sliding scale?


----------



## den bakker

robt57 said:


> Like.. on a sliding scale?


sliding? like his car?


----------



## mpre53

Local Hero said:


> What are Armstrong's top three most redeeming traits as a human being?


6 pages and no one has compared him to Idi Amin-----yet.


----------



## David Loving

Maybe it's time to start dog-piling somebody else. or go for a ride.


----------



## spade2you

mpre53 said:


> 6 pages and no one has compared him to Idi Amin-----yet.


Was Idi Amin the singer chick who married Paul Simon and sang What I Am?


----------



## Jackhammer

spade2you said:


> Was Idi Amin the singer chick who married Paul Simon and sang What I Am?


Yes, Armstrong "dated" her.


----------



## spade2you

Jackhammer said:


> Yes, Armstrong "dated" her.


Hopefully he put her into shallow water before she got too deep.


----------



## Horze

LA hasn't really damaged anything.
Cycling is just an activity at the end of the day. UCI, Tour, Anti-Doping Community (terms taken from this thread) -- these are all abstract notions. When something is new and unfamiliar to the masses, offence gets taken to it.


----------



## Jackhammer

Horze said:


> LA hasn't really damaged anything.
> Cycling is just an activity at the end of the day. UCI, Tour, Anti-Doping Community (terms taken from this thread) -- these are all abstract notions. When something is new and unfamiliar to the masses, offence gets taken to it.



Nice theory!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cookson points out the obvious



> “I think he needs to bear in mind that he may not get quite the welcome he would like in France riding around the route of the Tour the day before,” UCI president Brian Cookson told AFP at the SportAccord convention in Sochi, Russia.
> 
> “There are a lot of people already out on the route the day before the Tour and I am not so sure they would be delighted to see Lance Armstrong, so maybe he needs to bear that in mind.”
> 
> The UCI president renewed his call for Armstrong to give up the planned ride.
> 
> “It is undesirable, I think it is disrespectful. I think there are plenty of ways of raising money for charity that Lance could do.”


Cookson: Armstrong risks angry welcome on Tour charity ride - VeloNews.com

What Cookson may not realize is an angry reception is Lance's goal. It only enhances his "Victim of a witch hunt" narrative. He knows he has lost core cycling fans, they know too much. His target market is clueless groupies who buy into his latest spin


----------



## Local Hero

Didn't Armstrong say that most people are polite to his face? Perhaps Cookson suffers from believing something so strongly that he thinks everyone else thinks and feels the same way. Then again, we are talking about the French. 

Ultimately, this is fairly classless on Cookson's part. He can't help but continue to make statements about something outside of his control.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> Didn't Armstrong say that most people are polite to his face?


he also said he did not dope.


----------



## BacDoc

den bakker said:


> he also said he did not dope.


Think he said he never tested positive.

I never had sexual relations with that woman.

You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor.

Read my lips, no new taxes.

Check is in the mail.

So what else is new?


----------



## den bakker

BacDoc said:


> Think he said he never tested positive.
> 
> I never had sexual relations with that woman.
> 
> You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor.
> 
> Read my lips, no new taxes.
> 
> Check is in the mail.
> 
> So what else is new?


nonsense. 23 seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zad68VOxr8g
and others in same link. 

why is his word worth anything then when claiming how people greet him?


----------



## BacDoc

den bakker said:


> nonsense. 23 seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zad68VOxr8g
> and others in same link.
> 
> why is his word worth anything then when claiming how people greet him?


Yes, but he said "I never doped" which is totally different than "I did not dope"

Could be the language barrier. You foreigners have a tough time understanding us Mericans. As Pres Slick Willy said - It all depends what you mean by the word "is". 

Geeze! do we have to explain everything to you socialist commies !


----------



## den bakker

BacDoc said:


> Yes, but he said "I never doped" which is totally different than "I did not dope"
> 
> Could be the language barrier. You foreigners have a tough time understanding us Mericans. As Pres Slick Willy said - It all depends what you mean by the word "is".
> 
> Geeze! do we have to explain everything to you socialist commies !


yawn.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It would be naive to think that a mountainside filled with drunk Euros cycling fans is going to react the same way as the folks he meets at a golf course or his lawyers office


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It would be naive to think that a mountainside filled with drunk Euros cycling fans is going to react the same way as the folks he meets at a golf course or his lawyers office


True enough, but do the Europeans care about doping in cycling as the Americans do? Or are they more immune (or not as naive) to it knowing that is has been going on since the first bike race was held and will continue to go on until the last race is finished?


----------



## SPlKE

road addict said:


> or he could help raise money for a good cause


Lance has over a hundred million bucks in the bank, some of which was earned during his cheating and lying period.

Why doesn't he just give some of that, a small piece of his own vast fortune to the charity, and not rub peoples' noses in the dirt he put on a bunch of TDFs?

Oh yeah. I forgot. He's an extreme narcissist.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> True enough, but do the Europeans care about doping in cycling as the Americans do? Or are they more immune (or not as naive) to it knowing that is has been going on since the first bike race was held and will continue to go on until the last race is finished?


It would be naive to think that the only reason Euro cycling fans might not received lance warmly is due to doping......regardless, yes Euros boo dopers. Vino was booed when he bought LBL in 2010. Valverde is booed often
Valverde marches toward Liege over boos in Huy - VeloNews.com

Contador was booed
Contador booed and whistled by Tour public | Reuters

Rasmussen was also booed. 

Again, this is what Lance wants. He will spin it as he is a victim, singled out. Groupies will say that the Euros don't boo other dopers, when they actually do. 

All part of the Witch hunt myth.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It would be naive to think that the only reason Euro cycling fans might not received lance warmly is due to doping......regardless, yes Euros boo dopers. Vino was booed when he bought LBL in 2010. Valverde is booed often
> Valverde marches toward Liege over boos in Huy - VeloNews.com
> 
> Contador was booed
> Contador booed and whistled by Tour public | Reuters
> 
> Rasmussen was also booed.
> 
> Again, this is what Lance wants. He will spin it as he is a victim, singled out. Groupies will say that the Euros don't boo other dopers, when they actually do.
> 
> All part of the Witch hunt myth.


I don't think he could spin it his way, too many of his "secrets" are out and how the fans react has nothing to do with anything except his own actions in life. But hey, he may try, who knows.


----------



## Jwiffle

If Cookson didn't keep making such a big deal out of it, nobody would even know Lance was joining the ride.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> If Cookson didn't keep making such a big deal out of it, nobody would even know Lance was joining the ride.


He has been asked twice about it by reporters. Twice. He responded to their questions with a couple sentences. That is hardly a making big deal.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He has been asked twice about it by reporters. Twice. He responded to their questions with a couple sentences. That is hardly a making big deal.


Or he could say "No comment, it's not my business". As long as he does give an opinion, the media is going to keep asking as that's what sells papers.


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He has been asked twice about it by reporters. Twice. He responded to their questions with a couple sentences. That is hardly a making big deal.


Well, apparently Cookson is the only one responding then, because I only keep seeing stories about Cookson talking about it. If he made no response, it wouldn't be in the news and no one would know or care about Lance's involvement or not. 

If all publicity is good publicity, even when spoken against, Cookson just helps Lance out.


----------



## Local Hero

Cookson can't stay out of the limelight.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> Cookson can't stay out of the limelight.


Bingo.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Or he could say "No comment, it's not my business". As long as he does give an opinion, the media is going to keep asking as that's what sells papers.


Oh, I forgot. Everyone is supposed to pretend they do not have an opinion when it comes to Lance. Never question him :idea:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> Well, apparently Cookson is the only one responding then, .


It appears you missed this
Sole female participant in Tour de France charity ride pulls out due to late addition of Lance Armstrong | road.cc


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you missed this
> Sole female participant in Tour de France charity ride pulls out due to late addition of Lance Armstrong | road.cc


Maybe she figured that she would get more media coverage for her refusal, like those idiot Christian business owners who refuse to serve gays.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Oh, I forgot. Everyone is supposed to pretend they do not have an opinion when it comes to Lance. Never question him :idea:


This is not about Lance, this is about staying classy and professional. IMHO, as the president of the UCI, he should be refraining from commenting on things that are not his business, especially when it is controversial such as this.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you missed this
> Sole female participant in Tour de France charity ride pulls out due to late addition of Lance Armstrong | road.cc


And you forgot this line:



> She said that it was when the news broke that Nike would be sponsoring Justin Gatlin [who has returned to sprinting after bans for positive drug tests] that she realised she didn’t want to be involved.


And there are some people who bite off their nose to spite their face:



> “I was getting texts from friends when it was announced that Lance Armstrong would be taking part and I thought: ‘You know what, *I haven’t seen one positive thing about this*.’”


 Really???? Raising money for cancer not positive? Hmmmmm, that's odd. Different story if they were raising money for the Lance Defense Fund.

But everybody feels they should jump on the "I hate Lance, he is all evil" flavour of the day no matter what because it makes them feel morally superior.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> This is not about Lance, this is about staying classy and professional. IMHO, as the president of the UCI, he should be refraining from commenting on things that are not his business, especially when it is controversial such as this.


Classy and professional? Like crashing an event you are clearly not wanted at? 

The Tour is the UCI's business. It is the largest event on their calender and a fraud who is banned for life wants to exploit to promote himself


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> And you forgot this line:
> 
> 
> 
> And there are some people who bite off their nose to spite their face:
> 
> Really???? Raising money for cancer not positive? Hmmmmm, that's odd. Different story if they were raising money for the Lance Defense Fund.
> 
> But everybody feels they should jump on the "I hate Lance, he is all evil" flavour of the day no matter what because it makes them feel morally superior.


Before you get morally superior note that since Geoff announced that Lance would be participating donations have been flat. A handful of groupies rushed to give small donations but otherwise donations have hardly budged as lance as sponsers do not want to be associated with Lance


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Classy and professional? Like crashing an event you are clearly not wanted at?
> 
> The Tour is the UCI's business. It is the largest event on their calender and a fraud who is banned for life wants to exploit to promote himself


Lance is not in a leadership position, he is a nobody in cycling now, so not important if he stays classy & professional.

Who rides the public roads the day before the race in a non-UCI sanctioned event is NON of Cookson's business, period. Especially when the riders are riding for such a good cause such as cancer.


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Classy and professional? Like crashing an event you are clearly not wanted at?
> 
> The Tour is the UCI's business. It is the largest event on their calender and a fraud who is banned for life wants to exploit to promote himself


But there's the rub...Lance is NOT crashing an event he is not wanted at. He is going an event he was invited to. It's not a UCI event, so no one should be trying to shame him into not going. If, for example, he tries to show up at the awards ceremony for the Tour, then by all means, escort him out.

As far as I can tell, though, the charity ride had no official or even unofficial connection to the Tour.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> But there's the rub...Lance is NOT crashing an event he is not wanted at. He is going an event he was invited to. It's not a UCI event, so no one should be trying to shame him into not going. If, for example, he tries to show up at the awards ceremony for the Tour, then by all means, escort him out.
> 
> As far as I can tell, though, the charity ride had no official or even unofficial connection to the Tour.


You have the misguided assumption that the Tour is just the race, it isn't. It is a 3 week festival with fans camped out on some roads a week in advance. Lance is using an event he is banned from to promote his myth of being a victim, cry about witch hunts, and deploy the cancer shield. 

Classy


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Lance is not in a leadership position, he is a nobody in cycling now, so not important if he stays classy & professional.
> 
> Who rides the public roads the day before the race in a non-UCI sanctioned event is NON of Cookson's business, period. Especially when the riders are riding for such a good cause such as cancer.


Nonsense. People are allowed to voice their opinion of Lance using their event, one he is banned from, to promote himself. 

As long as Lance deploys the cancer shield nobody is allowed to question his actions.  Does this have limits or is he allowed to do anything without being questioned as long as he mentions the C word?


----------



## David Loving

I'm amazed at the lengths some will go to to keep the Lance Armstrong dog-pile alive. It's a career!


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have the misguided assumption that the Tour is just the race, it isn't. It is a 3 week festival with fans camped out on some roads a week in advance. Lance is using an event he is banned from to promote his myth of being a victim, cry about witch hunts, and deploy the cancer shield.
> 
> Classy


Except I haven't seen anything from lance promoting anything or complaining about witch hunts, etc. Only that he was invited, and agreed to attend a couple stages. It seems a myth that he is using this event to further the witch hunt myth. Leastways, I haven't seen a response from him to Cookson's statements saying any such.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> Except I haven't seen anything from lance promoting anything or complaining about witch hunts, etc.


I can only assume you are kidding


----------



## masi85

David Loving said:


> I'm amazed at the lengths some will go to to keep the Lance Armstrong dog-pile alive. It's a career!


It's like its their life's work. Will they EVER move on!:mad2:


----------



## SPlKE

TDF is the scene of the crime. Lance is the convicted criminal.

Simple, really. 

If Lance gave two craps about anything or anybody beyond himself, he should stay the eff away from, of all places, the TDF. 

I don't care who is inviting him, or the holiness of the cause for which they're trying to raise money. 

Whatever additional money Lance's presence could raise for the cause, Lance could donate 100 times more, directly from his personal bank account of money he amassed while cheating, lying about cheating, and crapping all over anybody who accused him of cheating and lying.


----------



## robt57

SPlKE said:


> TDF is the scene of the crime.


Crimes, plural. The fact anyone gives enough of sheit to go on and on about the douche is so far beyond me it is not funny.

He probably Googles him name at night and masturbates to the newer higher occurrence each time.

Stop helping LA masturbate! :mad2:





Let's please let him be history...


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can only assume you are kidding


I meant only in reference to this particular ride. I haven't read anything he has said about it.

Of course, we're all familiar with his past crying about witch hunts, etc. Which, of course, he was a witch to be hunted. I just don't see the relevance of Cookson's attempts to shame him away from a non-UCI event.


----------



## Local Hero

Why isn't Armstrong's lifetime ban from pro cycling enough for Cookson?


----------



## Alaska Mike

Again, if Lance wanted to participate in the Ride for the Roses or some other cancer-related ride, Cookson probably wouldn't have commented. Stop making Lance the victim here. It's about protecting the TDF brand, one he tarnished over the years. Cycling has precious few events that are recognized outside of the sport, and that's a resource that needs to be carefully guarded. This ride is loosely connected with the Tour, and therefore any negative publicity is reflected on the Tour.

Lance is the cancer here, and he keeps trying to regrow where he's been cut out. Hopefully the Floyd case at least partly removes his ability to earn publicity for himself. He can ride his bike all he wants, just not in most organized races. He's not under house arrest. He can still get a real job and earn a paycheck like the rest of us. He can go to school. He can retreat and eventually be forgotten. He doesn't want that, and it has less to do about cancer than it has to do about Lance.


----------



## Fireform

Alaska Mike said:


> Again, if Lance wanted to participate in the Ride for the Roses or some other cancer-related ride, Cookson probably wouldn't have commented. Stop making Lance the victim here. It's about protecting the TDF brand, one he tarnished over the years. Cycling has precious few events that are recognized outside of the sport, and that's a resource that needs to be carefully guarded. This ride is loosely connected with the Tour, and therefore any negative publicity is reflected on the Tour.
> 
> Lance is the cancer here, and he keeps trying to regrow where he's been cut out. Hopefully the Floyd case at least partly removes his ability to earn publicity for himself. He can ride his bike all he wants, just not in most organized races. He's not under house arrest. He can still get a real job and earn a paycheck like the rest of us. He can go to school. He can retreat and eventually be forgotten. He doesn't want that, and it has less to do about cancer than it has to do about Lance.


Brilliantly said.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have the misguided assumption that the Tour is just the race, it isn't. It is a 3 week festival with fans camped out on some roads a week in advance. Lance is using an event he is banned from to promote his myth of being a victim, cry about witch hunts, and deploy the cancer shield.
> 
> Classy


Link to where he said this? Did he send mental telepathy messages to Geoff to demand he ask him to the event too? 

He's not doing the whole thing, just a couple of days is my understanding. Oh, and there are some people that don't have the hatred as you do for him and would love to see him ride again.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> love to see him ride again.


I am sure the French will give him a very warm welcome :thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you

David Rebelin just won a stage of the Tour of Turkey and Valverde has won more classics post doping. Nah, let's discuss the Armstrong charity ride.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> David Rebelin just won a stage of the Tour of Turkey and Valverde has won more classics post doping. Nah, let's discuss the Armstrong charity ride.


You should start a thread

Nah, better to troll an Armstrong thread


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You should start a thread
> 
> Nah, better to troll an Armstrong thread


Good thing I don't call you a troll. Wouldn't want to get reported and/or neg reppd for name calling.


----------



## love4himies

Alaska Mike said:


> Again, if Lance wanted to participate in the Ride for the Roses or some other cancer-related ride, Cookson probably wouldn't have commented. Stop making Lance the victim here. It's about protecting the TDF brand, one he tarnished over the years. Cycling has precious few events that are recognized outside of the sport, and that's a resource that needs to be carefully guarded. This ride is loosely connected with the Tour, and therefore any negative publicity is reflected on the Tour.
> 
> Lance is the cancer here, and he keeps trying to regrow where he's been cut out. Hopefully the Floyd case at least partly removes his ability to earn publicity for himself. He can ride his bike all he wants, just not in most organized races. He's not under house arrest. He can still get a real job and earn a paycheck like the rest of us. He can go to school. He can retreat and eventually be forgotten. He doesn't want that, and it has less to do about cancer than it has to do about Lance.


But it's not Lance keeping it in the Limelight, it's Cookson. Lance has been very quiet about it.


----------



## Alaska Mike

love4himies said:


> But it's not Lance keeping it in the Limelight, it's Cookson. Lance has been very quiet about it.


A couple short responses to direct questions that got relatively limited press coverage is the limelight these days? If that's the effect, than Lance's ban should be longer, because it's working. He used to get a lot more press.

Cookson would rather talk about a multitude of topics, but he won't shy away from answering questions about his opinions on dopers. Compared to the last couple train wrecks that have occupied that office, he's extremely reserved in how he phrases a response. His steady, measured approach is exactly what the UCI needs right now.


----------



## love4himies

Alaska Mike said:


> A couple short responses to direct questions that got relatively limited press coverage is the limelight these days? If that's the effect, than Lance's ban should be longer, because it's working. He used to get a lot more press.
> 
> Cookson would rather talk about a multitude of topics, but he won't shy away from answering questions about his opinions on dopers. Compared to the last couple train wrecks that have occupied that office, he's extremely reserved in how he phrases a response. His steady, measured approach is exactly what the UCI needs right now.


Oh give me a break. Lance did not ruin the TdF "brand", the peloton, team management & owners did right along with the previous corrupt UCI mgmnt. Nobody said Lance was the victim, just that Cookson should not be commenting on things that don't concern him (and no, this does not concern him), especially because the event is for a good cause. 

He had a choice of what to say and it could have been that the cause is a good cause and he has no authority over who rides in it. He could encourage donations, rather than discourage. Or simply, No Comment. I prefer leaders who take the high road.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

If you say it enough times, and click your heels together, maybe it will come true 

Keep hope alive


----------



## SPlKE

As for the TdF brand, most non-cyclists I know instantly start talking about lance, dope, and cheating the moment the TdF is mentioned.

Lance certainly put the TdF on the map in the USA, first in a good way by winning, then in a very bad way by being exposed as a doper, a cheater and a serial liar.

Unfortunately, whatever good Lance did for the TdF brand during his winning years, he as undone in a very depressing and lasting way, making the TdF the punch line in jokes about sports cheaters, dopers and liars.


----------



## Jwiffle

SPlKE said:


> As for the TdF brand, most non-cyclists I know instantly start talking about lance, dope, and cheating the moment the TdF is mentioned.
> 
> Lance certainly put the TdF on the map in the USA, first in a good way by winning, then in a very bad way by being exposed as a doper, a cheater and a serial liar.
> 
> Unfortunately, whatever good Lance did for the TdF brand during his winning years, he as undone in a very depressing and lasting way, making the TdF the punch line in jokes about sports cheaters, dopers and liars.


Eh, doping in cycling is just the flavor of the month and lance is the largest scoop. A few years ago it was baseball, next it'll be soccer, and on and on. All sports are hit with cheating scandals, yet people keep actually playing them and watching them.

And many people who say they're turned off of cycling by Lance's cheating, when you actually ask them, never watched cycling in the first place.


----------



## spade2you

Jwiffle said:


> Eh, doping in cycling is just the flavor of the month and lance is the largest scoop. A few years ago it was baseball, next it'll be soccer, and on and on. All sports are hit with cheating scandals, yet people keep actually playing them and watching them.
> 
> And many people who say they're turned off of cycling by Lance's cheating, when you actually ask them, never watched cycling in the first place.


It may be interesting to note that both baseball and cycling were "probably" aware that doping was going on during the Armstrong era and during the Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire eras. Instead, the crowd gobbles it up and they bust 'em after. As 'ol Lance was stripped, the Skyborgs were dominating.


----------



## love4himies

Isn't Rugby the new flavour of the month? And whoever is the biggest star will have the biggest fall.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> And many people who say they're turned off of cycling by Lance's cheating, when you actually ask them, never watched cycling in the first place.


Link?


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link?


No link, just many of the people I've spoken to. I didn't say most or put any percentage or anything to the statement.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> No link, just many of the people I've spoken to. I didn't say most or put any percentage or anything to the statement.


Very scientific study, must be accurate. 

Armstrong's doping, lying, and cheating does appear to have had an effect on sponsors entering the sport. When Bob Stapleton was searching for a sponsor for HTC/Highroad he said the Armstrong doping investigation came up in every meeting. Despite being one of the top teams in the world they were unable to find a sponsor.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Very scientific study, must be accurate.
> 
> Armstrong's doping, lying, and cheating does appear to have had an effect on sponsors entering the sport. When Bob Stapleton was searching for a sponsor for HTC/Highroad he said the Armstrong doping investigation came up in every meeting. Despite being one of the top teams in the world they were unable to find a sponsor.


Really, just the Armstrong doping, not any other doping scandal, or a combination of all the doping scandals?


----------



## BelgianHammer

^^ +1 spade2you, that (Skyborgs) is the best friggin' name I've ever heard to describe the transiton from the mean-bad-demanding-everyone-dope Posties. As you correctly note, the different sports were ever so judicious in somehow seeing the bogeymen after and not during. It strains credibility beyond most anything I've ever come across in life. 

LOL, I do love it: _*The Skyborgs*_, Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You!


----------



## BelgianHammer

love4himies,

I can't believe you keep fighting this, presenting the sound, logical side to an emotional and thus indefensible argument presented by the opposing sides. I've wanted to jump back into this discussion, but the last time I posted (in that other thread where I said: "_we have no right to be moral arbiters of what occurred and not holding race teams and organizers and others accountable for what happened was/is just plain wrong_...'), wel, crap, I got more attacks than anything I've ever posted before on RBR. And all I was trying to say is what you (and a few others) keep correctly pointing out: you cannot separate the chaff from the wheat (read: the money) when it came to what happened in the late 90s till mid-2000s (_and is still occurring today with the virtually undetectable micro-dosing routines_).

Thus I anoint you Dear Madam, as having one he!! of an iron will in continually trying to bring reason and logic to an argument others have taken into the emotional realm where no logic/reason may exist :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Really, just the Armstrong doping, not any other doping scandal, or a combination of all the doping scandals?


Who do you think had the most effect on American sponsors willingness, or unwillingness, to participate in the sport?

Hard to ignore the damage Armstrong's fraud did to the image of the sport.


----------



## love4himies

BelgianHammer said:


> love4himies,
> 
> I can't believe you keep fighting this, presenting the sound, logical side to an emotional and thus indefensible argument presented by the opposing sides. I've wanted to jump back into this discussion, but the last time I posted (in that other thread where I said: "_we have no right to be moral arbiters of what occurred and not holding race teams and organizers and others accountable for what happened was/is just plain wrong_...'), wel, crap, I got more attacks than anything I've ever posted before on RBR. And all I was trying to say is what you (and a few others) keep correctly pointing out: you cannot separate the chaff from the wheat (read: the money) when it came to what happened in the late 90s till mid-2000s (_and is still occurring today with the virtually undetectable micro-dosing routines_).
> 
> Thus I anoint you sir, as having one he!! of an iron will in continually trying to bring reason and logic to an argument others have taken into the emotional realm where no logic/reason may exist :thumbsup:


Thank you.

I don't know Lance, have never met the man, but I do feel he was part of a whole culture of doping that included all aspects of the sport and so I don't hold him responsible for the condition of the sport. He didn't start the EPO doping and he won't be the last. He just did it well. Without EPO there would be no Postal Team, there would be no TdF wins for the Americans in that era, as they wouldn't have been able to compete without doping and how many sponsors like to sponsor loosing teams?

I also believe that people have the right to protect themselves from those who accuse in public without definitive proof and I feel that Lance used the court system and won his cases (I, however, have no respect for liars, especially those under oath). That was Lance's right to sue as is every other American citizen, bully or not. For somebody to take on Lance, who was armed with high priced lawyers had to know that they didn't have too much of a chance without that doping positive. I applaud the US court system for being one of the best systems in the world, even if it means that bullies can win their cases.

People have to take responsibility for their own actions in life. If they chose to dope because they said Lance bullied them into it, then that's their choice to dope. They could have quit as Scott Mercier did (not that I think it's fair at all to Scott, it truly wasn't). 

If Lance gets booed during his charity ride, then so be it (I am not a fan of booing, I find it in poor taste). He will get what he has earned in life. I only hope that people will recognize that he is doing it to raise money for such a great cause. This ride is not about Lance, but about cancer, for which Lance has done a lot of good for and should be commended, and what I truly believe Cookson should have been focusing on in his interviews. He is indeed entitled to his private opinions, but sometimes those should be kept private while in a leadership role.

By the way, I'm a missus, my avatar is me with Ryder Hesjedal a few years back.


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Very scientific study, must be accurate.
> 
> Armstrong's doping, lying, and cheating does appear to have had an effect on sponsors entering the sport. When Bob Stapleton was searching for a sponsor for HTC/Highroad he said the Armstrong doping investigation came up in every meeting. Despite being one of the top teams in the world they were unable to find a sponsor.


Never said it was scientific; I didn't attempt to actually quantify it. I work in a shop, so the conversation comes up a lot. And since it comes up with people who tell me they never were into professional cycling in the first place, I assume it's the case elsewhere, too.

And yes, Armstrong's cheating seems to have had an affect on sponsorship. But so did Rasmussen's (didn't rabobank say Armstrong was the straw that broke their camel's back, though they had nearly pulled out even earlier after the Rasmussen fiasco?), do Luca's, and many others. In other words, if it was only Lance who doped, cycling wouldn't have a sponsorship problem due to doping in the sport.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> Never said it was scientific; I didn't attempt to actually quantify it. I work in a shop, so the conversation comes up a lot. And since it comes up with people who tell me they never were into professional cycling in the first place, I assume it's the case elsewhere, too.
> 
> And yes, Armstrong's cheating seems to have had an affect on sponsorship. But so did Rasmussen's (didn't rabobank say Armstrong was the straw that broke their camel's back, though they had nearly pulled out even earlier after the Rasmussen fiasco?), do Luca's, and many others. In other words, if it was only Lance who doped, cycling wouldn't have a sponsorship problem due to doping in the sport.


 I doubt Dilucca's doping had much effect on sponsorship by American companies.


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I doubt Dilucca's doping had much effect on sponsorship by American companies.


Americans are the only ones who are supposed to sponsor cycling teams? Seems several american teams are finding sponsors from other countries: BMC, Garmin-Cannondale (well cannondale is owned by a Canadian company, so maybe we should count it as american company?)


----------



## Fireform

Jwiffle said:


> Americans are the only ones who are supposed to sponsor cycling teams? Seems several american teams are finding sponsors from other countries: BMC, Garmin-Cannondale (well cannondale is owned by a Canadian company, so maybe we should count it as american company?)


I see the straw man festival is in full swing.


----------



## BelgianHammer

Tis' has been corrected: "sir"is out the window and "Dear Madam" is in!  

Keep these believers in Lance being Satan's twin brother & all that uis wrong with the world on their toes, and not blinded to simple reason & logic.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fireform said:


> I see the straw man festival is in full swing.


I have not seen this level of nonsense being spewed since 2004


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who do you think had the most effect on American sponsors willingness, or unwillingness, to participate in the sport?
> 
> Hard to ignore the damage Armstrong's fraud did to the image of the sport.


Armstrong got people interested who would have never otherwise been interested. 


Imagine if Armstrong had played soccer and popularized soccer in the US during the 90s. Remember how soccer was popular in the late 90s? Well now nobody cares. No scandal. Nothing. 


I laugh at the lengths people go to demonize Armstrong. Yes, he's a prick, but he's not the root of all negativity towards cycling, nor is he the worst person in the world.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> he's not the root of all negativity towards cycling, nor is he the worst person in the world.


I laugh at the lengths people go to create strawman. Have yet to see anyone claiming anything close to this.


----------



## Jwiffle

Fireform said:


> I see the straw man festival is in full swing.


Not sure what you mean by that. I initially stated that all dopers have hurt the sponsorship in cycling, falsetti wanted to narrow it down to just american sponsors, as if they were the only ones put off of cycling by Lance's doping. I was simply pointing out that sponsors from other countries matter to cycling, as well. Some of them have been put off by Lance's doping, some by other's doping, or by the accumulated number of doping cases overall. And some sponsors continue to support cycling, even though they are aware that doping will always be a problem. (And, yes, it will. People cheat in sports, they cheat in business, they cheat on spouses, they cheat in life).


----------



## Fireform

Jwiffle said:


> Not sure what you mean by that. I initially stated that all dopers have hurt the sponsorship in cycling, falsetti wanted to narrow it down to just american sponsors, as if they were the only ones put off of cycling by Lance's doping. I was simply pointing out that sponsors from other countries matter to cycling, as well. Some of them have been put off by Lance's doping, some by other's doping, or by the accumulated number of doping cases overall. And some sponsors continue to support cycling, even though they are aware that doping will always be a problem. (And, yes, it will. People cheat in sports, they cheat in business, they cheat on spouses, they cheat in life).


No one wanted to say only American sponsors matter or should matter. You put those words in someone else's mouth. Just like no one has ever said Lance was the devil incarnate or the worst person on earth or should be put to death and on and on and on. The straw men just keep on coming. 

The fact is that Lance was a fraud, a bully, and a criminal, and he deserves to face the consequences, just like anyone else who did the things he did. He shouldn't get off because he's a celebrity with hordes of zombie fanboys.


----------



## SPlKE

Lance Armstrong is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.


----------



## Fireform

SPlKE said:


> Lance Armstrong is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.


That probably says more about you than him.


----------



## Jwiffle

Fireform said:


> The fact is that Lance was a fraud, a bully, and a criminal, and he deserves to face the consequences, just like anyone else who did the things he did. He shouldn't get off because he's a celebrity with hordes of zombie fanboys.


Now I'm confused. Are we arguing? Because I agree that Lance deserved punishment. All I originally intended to say was that since his punishment has already been handed out, we shouldn't be trying to punish him further. (At least until he's caught again, which will be never, obviously, since he has a lifetime ban).


----------



## love4himies

Jwiffle said:


> Now I'm confused. Are we arguing? Because I agree that Lance deserved punishment. All I originally intended to say was that since his punishment has already been handed out, we shouldn't be trying to punish him further. (At least until he's caught again, which will be never, obviously, since he has a lifetime ban).


They argue with anybody who doesn't condemn him for everything he does in life.


----------



## robt57

love4himies said:


> They argue with anybody who doesn't condemn him for everything he does in life.



And SOOOO many folks do that, what does it tell you. You want Sigmund to tell you why?

I am not going to start listing the reasons folks feel that way. If it is not obvious why folks do, google "why does every body Hate Lance Armstrong". Perhaps the reasons may become clearer as you parse through an awful lot of returns on that search.

Simply put, him being a massive bag of douche may be enough for some.. And there appears to bee little high road...


----------



## Alaska Mike

I don't hate Lance. I don't know him. Based on accounts from people that do, I doubt I would like him, but it is possible I would be drawn in like so many others by the cult of personality. Small chance of that ever happening, so I think I'm safe.

Here's the problem with Lance, as compared to the rest of the professional cycling world. He transcended the sport, just like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods. His success, charisma, and back-story allowed him to be bigger than any cyclist before him. Merckx wasn't that famous. People who don't know anything about cycling know his name, therefore he represents cycling to the vast unwashed masses.

No ******* ever yelled, "get off the road, Greg Lemond" at me.

When your representative to larger world has a spectacular downfall like that, the sport gets a massive kick in the naughty bits. If that perception shift doesn't affect sponsorship dollars, a lot of marketing guys need their heads examined. And we've seen it, time and again. A big scandal like that has sponsors looking closer and noticing smaller scandals that they might have overlooked, and they put their money elsewhere. There are lots of sports out there now and a multitude of ways to get exposure for your brand that pose less of a risk to your image than professional cycling.

Who title sponsors teams now? Bike brands and uber rich individuals. For the most part, that's who's coming to the table, and that's not sustainable. The whole structure of professional cycling is unsustainable, but it's what we have to work with now.

For the good of cycling and pretty much every organized sport, Lance just needs to go away. His name and the Tour should not be mentioned in the same sentence. There's a lot of ways he can do the cancer thing, but tying it to professional cycling just reminds everyone of just how dirty cycling can be. He didn't invent doping. He wasn't the only doper out there, but he was the most successful and visible. His downfall hopefully has started a chain reaction of events that will have a positive effect on cycling in the long term. That's my hope, even if Festina clearly illustrates that there's never a war to end all wars, just a continuing struggle to provide a somewhat level playing field.

I would have loved to see what Floyd was capable of clean in a clean peloton. Or Tyler. Or even Lance. I wish that transfusions, EPO, and all of the other stuff had never entered the peloton, but it did, and here we are. Hopefully our eyes are a little more open, but I'd like to think there will be a time for belief again. For that to happen, a lot of those reminders of why we're cynical now need to fade a bit, and that includes Lance. And Riis... and Vino... and Johan... and... well, you get the point.


----------



## Fireform

Jwiffle said:


> Now I'm confused. Are we arguing? Because I agree that Lance deserved punishment. All I originally intended to say was that since his punishment has already been handed out, we shouldn't be trying to punish him further. (At least until he's caught again, which will be never, obviously, since he has a lifetime ban).


And yet, inconveniently, fraud comes with certain legal penalties. Will the victimization never stop?


----------



## Jwiffle

Fireform said:


> And yet, inconveniently, fraud comes with certain legal penalties. Will the victimization never stop?


I don't know what your problem is. We weren't even discussing the fraud case the government and Landis have against him (though Landis should be suing himself, too, since he was part and parcel of the doping on the team). The ride in question, and Cookson's comments have nothing to do with the legal case. Which justice may view Lance as owing a huge fine; whatever. 

I'm not intending to portray Lance as a victim in any way. Just that once you've punished someone, you don't keep trying to punish them over and again for the same offense.

Simply put, the UCI has dished out the strongest punishment they can give. They need to be satisfied with that instead of trying to find more ways to punish him. Let others who have been wronged in other ways, like the government, pursue action against him where they can.

If it's a mistake for the charity ride to invite Lance, let them figure that out if contributions go flat because of his involvement.


----------



## Fireform

Jwiffle said:


> I don't know what your problem is. We weren't even discussing the fraud case the government and Landis have against him (though Landis should be suing himself, too, since he was part and parcel of the doping on the team). The ride in question, and Cookson's comments have nothing to do with the legal case. Which justice may view Lance as owing a huge fine; whatever.
> 
> I'm not intending to portray Lance as a victim in any way. Just that once you've punished someone, you don't keep trying to punish them over and again for the same offense.
> 
> Simply put, the UCI has dished out the strongest punishment they can give. They need to be satisfied with that instead of trying to find more ways to punish him. Let others who have been wronged in other ways, like the government, pursue action against him where they can.
> 
> If it's a mistake for the charity ride to invite Lance, let them figure that out if contributions go flat because of his involvement.


Well, you've steadfastly ignored the very clear and patient explanations from Dr. Falsetti and Alaska Mike as to why it's in the UCI's interest to keep him away from the Tour de France.

Maybe you can explain to me how Armstrong is harmed by this horrible penalty. Not being allowed to publicly give the finger to the UCI at their own event is a punishment?


----------



## deviousalex

Jwiffle said:


> Simply put, the UCI has dished out the strongest punishment they can give. They need to be satisfied with that instead of trying to find more ways to punish him. Let others who have been wronged in other ways, like the government, pursue action against him where they can.


You do realize this 'war' Brian Cookson has against Lance riding this ride was him RESPONDING to a question right? As Cookson said he was simply stating his opinion. If he really was attempting some religious campaign against him he'd try to create rules saying ex-dopers can't participate in anything associated with the tour.


----------



## Fireform

For God's sake the man was on Oprah! How much more does he have to endure?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> We weren't even discussing the fraud case the government and Landis have against him .


Perhaps Mr. Fireform was referring to the fraud he pulled on the Tour de France? You know, the topic of this thread? The event he wants to crash so he promote himself and his victim campaign. 

Of course he could have been referring to the fraud he pulled on SCA. Remember them? The guys he lied under oath so he could steal $12,000,000 from them? While Lance is touring the world with his fake apology Tour he is still trying to screw them out of the money he stole from them. 

Nothing has changed. New Lance, same as the old Lance.


----------



## Jwiffle

I give up. Even if I say exactly what you want me to say, you'll argue, anyway. Why has it taken me this long to see that?


----------



## SPlKE

Fireform said:


> For God's sake the man was on Oprah! How much more does he have to endure?


Hehe. I guess it could have been worse, had Oprah been on him.


----------



## SFTifoso

Lance's participation is drawing attention, evindeced by this thread, which is good for any charity event. Using something negative to help a positive cause, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## den bakker

SFTifoso said:


> Lance's participation is drawing attention, evindeced by this thread, which is good for any charity event. Using something negative to help a positive cause, nothing wrong with that.


except if other people decide not to participate or donate because of it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SFTifoso said:


> Lance's participation is drawing attention, evindeced by this thread, which is good for any charity event. Using something negative to help a positive cause, nothing wrong with that.


drawing attention to Lance. Has done little to increase donations. 

What are the donations going to be used for? Geoff and his buddies flew to Aspen for a weekend of photo shoots with Lance. More "Raising Awareness" through wasting money promoting the Lance myth

We have seen this scam before


----------



## Local Hero

_While the Tour gave him a cold shoulder, some French bystanders said they welcomed Armstrong’s return to their country, and he was applauded when he stopped for lunch.

“It’s not nice what he did,” Jacques Pylyp, a 53-year-old resident of Villefranche-d’Albigeois, where Armstrong ate at the Barry restaurant, told Agence France-Presse._

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/s...harity-on-fringes-of-tour-de-france.html?_r=0



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am sure the French will give him a very warm welcome :thumbsup:


You still mad?


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> _While the Tour gave him a cold shoulder, some French bystanders said they welcomed Armstrong’s return to their country, and he was applauded when he stopped for lunch.
> 
> “It’s not nice what he did,” Jacques Pylyp, a 53-year-old resident of Villefranche-d’Albigeois, where Armstrong ate at the Barry restaurant, told Agence France-Presse._
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/s...harity-on-fringes-of-tour-de-france.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> You still mad?


From the link:



> During the ride, Armstrong noted that other riders who were found to be doping retain prominent positions at the Tour. Larger than life images of Richard Virenque, who led the Festina team that was the focus of police drug raids in 1998, adorn vehicles promoting Festina watches at the Tour.
> 
> “Why am I not welcome? Because I’m a doper?” Armstrong said. “If you’re going to apply a standard, it has to be universal.”


Exactly. Cookson is such a hypocrite.


----------



## ddave12000

The press seems a lot more interested in the attention the LA does. If they're all so mad about it, stop providing a platform. There is absolutely nothing riding on this, no pun intended.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Cookson is such a hypocrite.


What did Cookson say about the commercial?


----------



## Fireform

It's hilarious that Armstrong can play dumb about why he's not welcome there, and his sycophants will just lap it up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fireform said:


> It's hilarious that Armstrong can play dumb about why he's not welcome there, and his sycophants will just lap it up.


Yup. People don't want him because he broke the human code, not the WADA code. 

Donations have been weak. Only 50% of the Goal and not much more then when Geoff 1st did this, with much less coverage, 10 years ago. 

So much for lance drawing donations.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> _While the Tour gave him a cold shoulder, some French bystanders said they welcomed Armstrong’s return to their country, and he was applauded when he stopped for lunch.
> 
> “It’s not nice what he did,” Jacques Pylyp, a 53-year-old resident of Villefranche-d’Albigeois, where Armstrong ate at the Barry restaurant, told Agence France-Presse._
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/s...harity-on-fringes-of-tour-de-france.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> You still mad?


Why would I be mad? 

Another account of the ride. 

Tour de France 2015: Lance Armstrong criticises hypocrisy of cycling - Telegraph

"darkening the French roads with his presence again."
"attracted precious little attention on the roads."
“people staring out of their front yard doing something else”.

Lance is good at drawing journalists......not so good at drawing donations or people.


----------



## Local Hero

lol - even with your half quotes it's not bad at all. 

From your article: 

On a pee stop he was approached by a father who broke down in tears talking about his son’s leukaemia. Mostly, he admitted when the group stopped for lunch, it was just “people staring out of their front yard doing something else”.

“But anything that has been yelled has been 100 per cent supportive,” he added. “Not one ‘tricheur’ [cheat]. Not one ‘go home’. I expected to have someone say something.”


_100% supportive_.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> lol - even with your half quotes it's not bad at all.
> 
> From your article:
> 
> On a pee stop he was approached by a father who broke down in tears talking about his son’s leukaemia. Mostly, he admitted when the group stopped for lunch, it was just “people staring out of their front yard doing something else”.
> 
> “But anything that has been yelled has been 100 per cent supportive,” he added. “Not one ‘tricheur’ [cheat]. Not one ‘go home’. I expected to have someone say something.”
> 
> 
> _100% supportive_.


Armstrong always reminds me of this one


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> lol - even with your half quotes it's not bad at all.
> 
> From your article:
> 
> On a pee stop he was approached by a father who broke down in tears talking about his son’s leukaemia. Mostly, he admitted when the group stopped for lunch, it was just “people staring out of their front yard doing something else”.
> 
> “But anything that has been yelled has been 100 per cent supportive,” he added. “Not one ‘tricheur’ [cheat]. Not one ‘go home’. I expected to have someone say something.”
> 
> 
> _100% supportive_.


It is nice to hear that the 2-3 people that were on the side of the road did not say anything bad to your hero. 

Nobody cares. The only people to show up were journalists looking for an update on the Armstrong train-wreck. 

A buddy of mine is a journalist and was in the follow car all day. Said the photo opp with the kid in the wheel chair was so staged it was painful to watch. Exploiting others pain in his desperate quest for redemption......douchechills


----------



## love4himies

Fireform said:


> It's hilarious that Armstrong can play dumb about why he's not welcome there, and his sycophants will just lap it up.


WTF. Where did you get that from?


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> What did Cookson say about the commercial?


Read the article.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Read the article.


I was looking for the quote. please help me out? 
Now Cookson only appears by name in two paragraphs and Virenque and the commercial is not mentioned there at all. 
So what is is stance? what did he say? 
Is there any statement of how great he thinks it is? how bad it is? how did you determine he was a hypocrite? Keeping in mind he was only responding to Armstrongs appearance in the charity after being asked.

edited: the placing of paragraphs in the article.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> WTF. Where did you get that from?


It is pretty simple, Lance compares himself to Jaja over and over........ignoring the fact that most people want nothing to do with him because he is a douche who participated in the corruption of the UCI, worked hard to try to destroy USADA, and smeared anyone who told the truth. 

Most folks can see it is not just because he doped.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nobody cares.


Isn't that the opposite of the outcry that the Armstrong haters predicted?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Isn't that the opposite of the outcry that the Armstrong haters predicted?


It certainly is different from what the groupies predicted. 

As expected lance's participation did not draw donations, it repelled them. 50% of the goal. The media came to cover the Lance trainwreck, very little about leukemia.

Groupies thought people still cared about Lance.....they were wrong


----------



## 55x11

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is pretty simple, Lance compares himself to Jaja over and over........ignoring the fact that most people want nothing to do with him because he is a douche who participated in the corruption of the UCI, worked hard to try to destroy USADA, and smeared anyone who told the truth.
> 
> Most folks can see it is not just because he doped.


I don't think this whole thread belongs in "Doping forum". I think this is the first time a thread should be moved *OUT* of "Doping forum" to newly formed "Douchebag" forum.

Seriously, if Basso (or Contador, Valverde, VandeVelde, Hincapie etc.) comes back in a few years and wants to do a ride for charity, nobody will care one bit.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Donations have been weak. Only 50% of the Goal and not much more then when Geoff 1st did this, with much less coverage, 10 years ago.
> 
> So much for lance drawing donations.


So this fundraiser drew more than before but only 50 percent of the goal. You have proof of both this and the fact that 50 percent short of goal is Armstrong’s fault? Gosh, maybe they should give the money raised back due to a bad person was a key figure in raising it and in the face of such “exploitation.”




Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nobody cares. The only people to show up were journalists looking for an update on the Armstrong train-wreck.
> 
> A buddy of mine is a journalist and was in the follow car all day. Said the photo opp with the kid in the wheel chair was so staged it was painful to watch. Exploiting others pain in his desperate quest for redemption......douchechills


Journalists show up to cover what people are interested in. 

You “friend” the journalist allegations, (how convenient for you), that the wheel chair photo op was an exploitation proves this how? Oh wait they are a journalist. Imagine a journalist criticizing exploitation, (real or imagined or made up.) 

I don't care one way or the other about Armstrong participating in the fundraiser ride but goodness sake get over this obsession with Armstrong. 

You and Local Hero ought to get a chat room and hash your war out about Armstrong that plagues this site thread after thread after thread.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is pretty simple, Lance compares himself to Jaja over and over........ignoring the fact that most people want nothing to do with him because he is a douche who participated in the corruption of the UCI, worked hard to try to destroy USADA, and smeared anyone who told the truth.
> 
> Most folks can see it is not just because he doped.


He used the court system to his advantage and had the money to do it. That's the American way and he had a right to do it. So what????

Seems to me that the CIRC report dismissed many of the rumors of corruption between Lance and the UCI, did they not?

If it's because of him being an a$$hole, then that has nothing to do with the Tour. There are many a$$hole pros/managers/team owners.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

55x11 said:


> I don't think this whole thread belongs in "Doping forum". I think this is the first time a thread should be moved *OUT* of "Doping forum" to newly formed "Douchebag" forum.
> 
> Seriously, if Basso (or Contador, Valverde, VandeVelde, Hincapie etc.) comes back in a few years and wants to do a ride for charity, nobody will care one bit.


I don't think anyone has an issue with Armstrong riding a charity ride, the issue is him using the Tour as tool for his latest propaganda campaign. 

Lance's history with the Tour is more then just doping. Behind the scenes he was a constant source of chaos for the ASO. After his first retirement he and Verburggen tried to buy the Tour. The ASO's price was high and lance could not raise enough money from his Wall Street buddies so he and his partner Hein set out to devalue the Tour and get it for cheaper. 

rules at the time said if you miss a OOC test in the 6 week prior to a Grand Tour then you cannot start the GT. Rasmussen missed 3. The UCI did nothing and waited until the Tour was about to start to announce the missed test in order cause maximum damage

Patrice Clerc, who ran the Tour at the time said



> "They tried to buy the Tour but could not agree on price, they are now trying to devalue the asset and get it for cheaper.


When Armstrong returned in 2009 he lobbied the Tour to fire Clerc. His buddy Hein did the same thing, visiting old Mrs Amaury and pushing them to fire Clerc. He was not on the Armstrong/Verbuggen team so he must go.......Go he was fired. Lance, being his normal douche self, taunted Patrice on Twitter. Childish. 

Did Vandevelde do anything like this?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> He used the court system to his advantage and had the money to do it. That's the American way and he had a right to do it. So what????
> .


We get it. You are OK with rich people using their power to ruin people's lives and cover up their missdeeds. Do not expect everyone to share this warped view


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it. You are OK with rich people using their power to ruin people's lives and cover up their missdeeds. Do not expect everyone to share this warped view


NO I'm OK with the US court system. If the court sees fit to award the a$$hole, then that is the decision of the court. Armstrong just exercises his rights he doesn't control the court.

Maybe you're OK with going back to the medieval times where courts are based on prejudiced and rumor outcomes?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> NO I'm OK with the US court system. If the court sees fit to award the a$$hole, then that is the decision of the court. Armstrong just exercises his rights he doesn't control the court.
> 
> Maybe you're OK with going back to the medieval times where courts are based on prejudiced and rumor outcomes?


You are making no sense again


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I don't think anyone has an issue with Armstrong riding a charity ride, the issue is him using the Tour as tool for his latest propaganda campaign.
> 
> Lance's history with the Tour is more then just doping. Behind the scenes he was a constant source of chaos for the ASO. After his first retirement he and Verburggen tried to buy the Tour. The ASO's price was high and lance could not raise enough money from his Wall Street buddies so he and his partner Hein set out to devalue the Tour and get it for cheaper.


So not only do you have a problem with the best court system in the world, you are against capitalism. :nonod:


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are making no sense again


How? Because my views aren't as biased as yours? That a$$holes should have no rights?


----------



## Fireform

love4himies said:


> NO I'm OK with the US court system. If the court sees fit to award the a$$hole, then that is the decision of the court. Armstrong just exercises his rights he doesn't control the court.
> 
> Maybe you're OK with going back to the medieval times where courts are based on prejudiced and rumor outcomes?


Armstrong used his ill-gotten wealth to harass people in court who he knew were innocent, undermine the livelihoods of people he knew were telling the truth about him, and lobby for the dismantling of regulatory groups that were on his trail. If that makes him seem like a hero to you, I don't know what else to say.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> How? Because my views aren't as biased as yours?


now that was funny.


----------



## love4himies

Fireform said:


> Armstrong used his ill-gotten wealth to harass people in court who he knew were innocent, undermine the livelihoods of people he knew were telling the truth about him, and lobby for the dismantling of regulatory groups that were on his trail. If that makes him seem like a hero to you, I don't know what else to say.


Yup, I read "hero" in my posts, yup . 

Guess those telling the truth should have ensured they had the proof to back it up, now shouldn't they. Would be a sad day in the USA if the courts no longer required proof.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Yup, I read "hero" in my posts, yup .


yeah he forgot the mandatory ? so one is "just asking questions". .


----------



## Local Hero

GlobalGuy said:


> So this fundraiser drew more than before but only 50 percent of the goal. You have proof of both this and the fact that 50 percent short of goal is Armstrong’s fault? Gosh, maybe they should give the money raised back due to a bad person was a key figure in raising it and in the face of such “exploitation.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Journalists show up to cover what people are interested in.
> 
> You “friend” the journalist allegations, (how convenient for you), that the wheel chair photo op was an exploitation proves this how? Oh wait they are a journalist. Imagine a journalist criticizing exploitation, (real or imagined or made up.)
> 
> I don't care one way or the other about Armstrong participating in the fundraiser ride but goodness sake get over this obsession with Armstrong.
> 
> You and Local Hero ought to get a chat room and hash your war out about Armstrong that plagues this site thread after thread after thread.


I agree with this post up until the last sentence. What you wrote isn't much different from what I have written. I point out the same things you point out.


----------



## Fireform

love4himies said:


> Yup, I read "hero" in my posts, yup .
> 
> Guess those telling the truth should have ensured they had the proof to back it up, now shouldn't they. Would be a sad day in the USA if the courts no longer required proof.


It turns out they do have proof, and his money isn't going to save him. In the meanwhile, he's inflicted tremendous harm on a lot of people who deserved nothing of the kind. 

Your persistent defense of this massive bag of douch under the flimsy pretext of defending our noble legal system could possibly be seen as hero worship.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> Your persistent defense of this massive bag of douch under the flimsy pretext of defending our noble legal system could possibly be seen as hero worship.


I disagree but if so, why shift the discussion from the defense to the person making the defense?


----------



## bluelena69

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I laugh at the lengths people go to create strawman. Have yet to see anyone claiming anything close to this.


He's not exactly Dick Cheney. I'd like to see Dick Cheney suffer a fraction of the scrutiny Armstrong has experienced.


----------



## den bakker

bluelena69 said:


> He's not exactly Dick Cheney. I'd like to see Dick Cheney suffer a fraction of the scrutiny Armstrong has experienced.


amazing there's no more talk about Cheney in a cycling doping forum. Just amazing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> yeah he forgot the mandatory ? so one is "just asking questions". .


Or the "I am not a fan of lance but"......usually followed by an absurd justification of Lance's actions


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> NO I'm OK with the US court system. If the court sees fit to award the a$$hole, then that is the decision of the court. Armstrong just exercises his rights he doesn't control the court.
> 
> Maybe you're OK with going back to the medieval times where courts are based on prejudiced and rumor outcomes?


Again, your posts do not make sense. 

We are discussing the abuse and manipulation of the legal system not the validity of the legal system itself. Armstrong would routinely threaten to use his superior financial resources to harass people. 

There may be some shady lawyers agreed that manipulating the legal system is a good thing but don't expect many others to agree.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

GlobalGuy said:


> t goodness sake get over this obsession with Armstrong.





Local Hero said:


> I disagree but if so, why shift the discussion from the defense to the person making the defense?


.....


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> .....


Is that the "everyone is doing it" defense?


----------



## spookyload

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is nice to hear that the 2-3 people that were on the side of the road did not say anything bad to your hero.
> 
> Nobody cares. The only people to show up were journalists looking for an update on the Armstrong train-wreck.
> 
> A buddy of mine is a journalist and was in the follow car all day. Said the photo opp with the kid in the wheel chair was so staged it was painful to watch. Exploiting others pain in his desperate quest for redemption......douchechills


On the same note it is refreshing to see you still have an unbridled hatred of Lance. Most divorced couples don't hold onto anger for this long


----------



## spookyload

den bakker said:


> except if other people decide not to participate or donate because of it.


Please provide any evidence of someone who did not participate because Lance did.


----------



## den bakker

spookyload said:


> Please provide any evidence of someone who did not participate because Lance did.


"On the same note it is refreshing to see you have an unbridled hatred of Lance. Most divorced couples don't hold onto anger for this long " 
sometimes one in the couple also "likes" on of those 2 month old pictures as well :thumbsup:


----------



## spookyload

Fireform said:


> Armstrong used his ill-gotten wealth to harass people in court who he knew were innocent, undermine the livelihoods of people he knew were telling the truth about him, and lobby for the dismantling of regulatory groups that were on his trail. If that makes him seem like a hero to you, I don't know what else to say.


You must be new to the US government. I honestly thought I was in a NRA forum for a second there based on your response. Bullying and coercion isn't something Lance created contrary to Dr Falsetti's opinion. I could care less what Lance does or where he goes. If his celeb status helped one person, that is one more than the Lance haters here helped by spewing keyboard expertise? How much did you raise this year Falsetti? Must be in the millions right?


----------



## spookyload

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Again, your posts do not make sense.
> 
> We are discussing the abuse and manipulation of the legal system not the validity of the legal system itself. Armstrong would routinely threaten to use his superior financial resources to harass people.
> 
> There may be some shady lawyers agreed that manipulating the legal system is a good thing but don't expect many others to agree.


So how does Floyd fit in? He must be your hero for bringing Lance down. Yet he cheated, got caught, lied over and over in court, blackmailed Discovery for a spot on the team, spilled his guys when they called his bluff, now will likely get a bunch of money for doing it. Oh, did I forget the part where he lied to cycling fans who thought he was telling the truth and took their money in his defense because his poor Mennonite background couldn't provide anything for him. Lets talk about manipulation now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spookyload said:


> So how does Floyd fit in? He must be your hero for bringing Lance down. Yet he cheated, got caught, lied over and over in court, blackmailed Discovery for a spot on the team, spilled his guys when they called his bluff, now will likely get a bunch of money for doing it. Oh, did I forget the part where he lied to cycling fans who thought he was telling the truth and took their money in his defense because his poor Mennonite background couldn't provide anything for him. Lets talk about manipulation now.


It appears you are determined to make this personal. 

Floyd is not my hero.....he is also not the subject of this thread

Any evidence to support the claim that Floyd blackmailed Discovery? lance tried that nonsense years ago. Published emails that he claimed supported it, but when it was pointed out that the emails in no way supported Lance's claim of blackmail he quickly took them down and pretended it never happened

funny how the myth continues


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you are determined to make this personal.
> 
> Floyd is not my hero.....he is also not the subject of this thread
> 
> Any evidence to support the claim that Floyd blackmailed Discovery? lance tried that nonsense years ago. Published emails that he claimed supported it, but when it was pointed out that the emails in no way supported Lance's claim of blackmail he quickly took them down and pretended it never happened
> 
> funny how the myth continues


It appears you're not very informed on this, but Floyd did try to blackmail Brunyell, Lance, and Radio Shack. What happened on Discovery is irrelevant.


----------



## Jwiffle

I think Froome really put it best when he said Armstrong's ride was a "non-event." That's the way it should be seen, and should have been addressed by Cookson at the first.

By responding to reporters' initial questions the way he did, Cookson turned it into an event. If he had responded the way Froome did, it probably wouldn't have continued to be discussed. But as it was, it gave fuel to the pro-lancers that he's still being hunted like a witch, and fuel to the anti-lancers that he is the devil I incarnate.

Ultimately, I don't think Cookson's comments helped the UCI's image at all, and made it easier for those of us who neither hate nor like lance to see lance as a scapegoat* for a rotten generation of cyclists.

*Not the right term I'm looking for, but close as I can think of. A scapegoat is usually someone innocent taking the blame for someone who is not. But lance was not innocent. But he was given a lifetime ban when others were given practically nothing. Even Bruneel was only given 10 year ban, and as the director, he would have been the one directly responsible for the team-wide doping, much more so than lance.


----------



## spookyload

He also attempted to blackmail Lemond over his molestation as a child. Lemond testified to that in court if I remember correctly. Luckily for Floyd, one of his cronies took the fall, but the conversation only happened between Floyd and Lemond.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> It appears you're not very informed on this, but Floyd did try to blackmail Brunyell, Lance, and Radio Shack. What happened on Discovery is irrelevant.


It appears you are not very well informed on this

As I pointed out lance claimed blackmail but was never able to provide any evidence to support it. 

Let us know when you find it


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spookyload said:


> He also attempted to blackmail Lemond over his molestation as a child. Lemond testified to that in court if I remember correctly. Luckily for Floyd, one of his cronies took the fall, but the conversation only happened between Floyd and Lemond.


Cool story bro. You should open a Floyd thread. This thread is about Armstrong desperately trying to stay relevant.


----------



## spookyload

Jwiffle said:


> I think Froome really put it best when he said Armstrong's ride was a "non-event." That's the way it should be seen, and should have been addressed by Cookson at the first.
> 
> By responding to reporters' initial questions the way he did, Cookson turned it into an event. If he had responded the way Froome did, it probably wouldn't have continued to be discussed. But as it was, it gave fuel to the pro-lancers that he's still being hunted like a witch, and fuel to the anti-lancers that he is the devil I incarnate.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't think Cookson's comments helped the UCI's image at all, and made it easier for those of us who neither hate nor like lance to see lance as a scapegoat* for a rotten generation of cyclists.
> 
> *Not the right term I'm looking for, but close as I can think of. A scapegoat is usually someone innocent taking the blame for someone who is not. But lance was not innocent. But he was given a lifetime ban when others were given practically nothing. Even Bruneel was only given 10 year ban, and as the director, he would have been the one directly responsible for the team-wide doping, much more so than lance.


Good post. I agree he isn't a scapegoat. I was thinking more along the lines of fall guy for a generation of sophisticated doping. Don't fool yourself into thinking the 90s was the birth of doping however. How many times was Eddy Merckx suspended in his career for doping? Anquentil openly wrote about his doping acts with amphetamines in his book. Virenque was involved in the biggest scandal the tour has seen with Festina, yet he he still lords over the tour as the face of Festina. Uhlrich and Riis both admitted to doping yet were invited to the centenial celebration. Pantani was so doped up while racing that drugs killed him in retirement and he maintains God status. How about our hero 84 Olympic team that crushed the world? Total systematic doping by the national governing body. Yet in the end, one person is responsible for cheating and ruining the sport. Trek made their money off him. Nike made their money off him. The networks made their money off him. And worst of all, ASO made a shitload off of him. But his corruption is all on him. He is the evil mind behind the evil empire. Only Austin Powers could have stopped him.


----------



## spookyload

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Cool story bro. You should open a Floyd thread. This thread is about Armstrong desperately trying to stay relevant.


He could give two shits about relevant. If he posted he was coming to any town in America for a ride, thousands would show up to ride with him. The hate for him only lingers in people who can't let go of irrational hate. For your sake and the sake of the doping forum, I pray nothing happens to him or you will have to focus your spite on someone else who is still actually racing and making money by doing it. I am sure you will disagree with that too however. 

Until Froome turned into superman and Lance was drug into a comment, what was the last thing you heard from him? Oh yeah, when he was banned from riding Hincappies Fondo (odd since he was doper #2 on the team but has since been given absolution by the USADA gods in the quest for Dr Evil). He isn't riding for money. On the contrary, he is riding to help others make it. That is so disgraceful.


----------



## deviousalex

spookyload said:


> Total systematic doping by the national governing body. Yet in the end, one person is responsible for cheating and ruining the sport.


Are we really back to this straw man argument? Where has anyone in any of these threads claimed Lance is single handedly responsible for this? The typical way these threads start is that Lance does something to try to stay relevant, someone starts a thread about him, then his supporters/sympathizers claim that anyone who says negative things about him is blaming him for the systematic problem completely ignoring the fact that the thread was started about Armstrong.


----------



## spookyload

deviousalex said:


> Are we really back to this straw man argument? *Where has anyone in any of these threads claimed Lance is single handedly responsible for this*? The typical way these threads start is that Lance does something to try to stay relevant, someone starts a thread about him, then his supporters/sympathizers claim that anyone who says negative things about him is blaming him for the systematic problem completely ignoring the fact that the thread was started about Armstrong.


Paging Dr Falsetti. 

You are the second person to say he is doing something to stay relevant. Why do you think this? If he goes for a ride around Aspen with lycra on, is he doing it to stay relevant? Does he need permission from USADA and the trolls here to do that without being accused of trying to stay relevant? I heard he might go out to dinner this weekend, who does he need to check in with to not be accused of trying to stay relevant. 

Unfortunately for this forum, he is a celebrity. The media makes money off feeding trolls. If he gets in a fender bender, the media comes to him. I actually have a bet with someone from here that Lance beat a certain focused hater in the past and this is his public forum to get back. He feels slighted and can only explain his loss on the doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spookyload said:


> Paging Dr Falsetti.
> .


Please provide a link to a post where I say anything close the strawmen you are inventing.


----------



## den bakker

spookyload said:


> P I heard he might go out to dinner this weekend, who does he need to check in with to not be accused of trying to stay relevant.


that counts as a public safety announcement.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you are not very well informed on this
> 
> As I pointed out lance claimed blackmail but was never able to provide any evidence to support it.
> 
> Let us know when you find it


As you have asked me to do your homework, again, it is very clear that your knowledge on this is very limited. Floyd did indeed ask Brunynell and Radio Shack for a job and when he was told no and in turn he made his statement/emails which brought down pro cycling to its' current state.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> As you have asked me to do your homework, again, it is very clear that your knowledge on this is very limited. Floyd did indeed ask Brunynell and Radio Shack for a job and when he was told no and in turn he made his statement/emails which brought down pro cycling to its' current state.


I am asking you to back up your claim, so far you have provide nothing but spin from lance. He made a nice attempt to smear Landis but, as usual, it was just another lance invention. The emails Lance released as "Proof" showed zero evidence of extortion and lance quickly backtracked. 

Let us know when you find anything to support your claim.


----------



## Jwiffle

Now it's getting funny! People arguing, "Show me proof!" "No, you show me proof!" And neither side providing any evidence or even news articles to support either. Lol


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am asking you to back up your claim, so far you have provide nothing but spin from lance. He made a nice attempt to smear Landis but, as usual, it was just another lance invention. The emails Lance released as "Proof" showed zero evidence of extortion and lance quickly backtracked.
> 
> Let us know when you find anything to support your claim.


Are you asking me to back up my claim of a person's "very limited understanding of this subject"? You can do your own homework as to the sources, but one of the Postal boys has alluded to what Floyd wanted to do and there is independent film which states Floyd's intentions on this matter. I don't believe Radio Shack was involved in spinning this.

While we're on the subject, please let me know when you find support of this backtracking which went on.


----------



## SicBith

Jwiffle said:


> Now it's getting funny! People arguing, "Show me proof!" "No, you show me proof!" And neither side providing any evidence or even news articles to support either. Lol


Proof has been given....we'll see if he gives up his. This person's often asks for sources and then makes accusations as to why the sources given are not trustworthy without backing those up with sources of their own. You want funny...see what happens next.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Proof has been given...


You have given no proof. Nada, Zip. Let us know when you find some.


The facts are Lance claimed Landis tried to blackmail them
He released emails that showed no evidence of blackmail
He took down the emails and backtracked on the claim landis tried to blackmail him.

There was no blackmail, just another attempt to smear someone for telling the truth


----------



## Jwiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have given no proof. Nada, Zip. Let us know when you find some.


My statement still stands...nobody has really linked any thing!

(That includes you, too, Falsetti. It might behoove you to provide some of your own if you want others to share theirs) 

Oh, and before you claim the burden of proof is all on them, you've made a few claims yourself. So, as I see it, everyone at this point shares the burden of proof.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have given no proof. Nada, Zip. Let us know when you find some.
> 
> 
> The facts are Lance claimed Landis tried to blackmail them
> He released emails that showed no evidence of blackmail
> He took down the emails and backtracked on the claim landis tried to blackmail him.
> 
> There was no blackmail, just another attempt to smear someone for telling the truth


What?



Doesn't everyone agree that Landis would not have gone to the feds if Armstrong gave Landis a job?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have given no proof. Nada, Zip. Let us know when you find some.
> 
> 
> The facts are Lance claimed Landis tried to blackmail them
> He released emails that showed no evidence of blackmail
> He took down the emails and backtracked on the claim landis tried to blackmail him.
> 
> There was no blackmail, just another attempt to smear someone for telling the truth


I believe you do not understand my post or yours as proof was given. There is an independent film which states Floyd's intentions. *Hint it's on Netflix This is one of the sources which describes Floyd's intentions. The person who describes Floyd's intentions to the camera is David Walsh. Is he a creditable source to you?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jwiffle said:


> My statement still stands...nobody has really linked any thing!


Correct, there is nothing to support the claim that Landis tried to blackmail Lance. They used to be here
http://www.livestrong.com/teamradio...t-regarding-doping-allegations/#ixzz0oafsW7J7

If lance was so confident that they supported his claim why did he take them down 3 days later? 

Armstrong released the emails and took them down a few days later when it became clear to anyone who read them that it was Lance who being a bully, threatening landis and Dr. Kay. The email asking for a job did not even come from Landis, it came from Dr. Kay. 

Lance quickly backtracked from his claim

I liked this part from landis


> So once again I'd like to remind you that calling my close friends with allegations of alcoholism and insanity will be ineffective and certainly threats of "tweeting" that if I have something to say I should just say it reflect poorly on your mental well-being and maybe seeking help is a good idea for you


Ohhhh, Lance is threatening to "Tweet" What a badass. 

The facts are Lance and Johan claimed they were blackmailed. They presented zero evidence to support this claim. They did not go to police to report this supposed extortion attempt. Nada. The took down the emails and retreated from their claim. 

The same groupies that bought their claim also believed Lance when he said he would hire Catlin to have the most advanced testing program in history......then cancel it quietly

Lance knows there is a sucker born every minute.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> What?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't everyone agree that Landis would not have gone to the feds if Armstrong gave Landis a job?


He had already told the head of USA cycling about doping on USPS 3 years earlier.

Landis is a professional cyclist. He asked the head of a team for a job. He also asked J.V. for a job. Was he blackmailing JV too? 

Nothing in the emails support the claim that landis tried to blackmail lance. Nada. That is why lance took them down. It made a big splash, lots of headlines, but it went nowhere.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Gotta laugh at how a thread about lance gets highjacked to be about Floyd. 

Floyd is not my hero. He didn't try to blackmail Lance but he did do a lot of other bad stuff. He has nothing to do with lance riding in France. The topic of this thread

If you want to discuss lance's 5 year old failed smear of Floyd feel free to start a new thread


----------



## SicBith

Jwiffle said:


> My statement still stands...nobody has really linked any thing!
> 
> (That includes you, too, Falsetti. It might behoove you to provide some of your own if you want others to share theirs)
> 
> Oh, and before you claim the burden of proof is all on them, you've made a few claims yourself. So, as I see it, everyone at this point shares the burden of proof.


Documentary Stop at Nothing at or about 20:22


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Documentary Stop at Nothing at or about 20:22


20:22 is Betsy talking about meeting Ferrari in a motorhome

You really should start a thread about this. It is clearly important to you


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Gotta laugh at how a thread about lance gets highjacked to be about Floyd.
> 
> Floyd is not my hero. He didn't try to blackmail Lance but he did do a lot of other bad stuff. He has nothing to do with lance riding in France. The topic of this thread
> 
> If you want to discuss lance's 5 year old failed smear of Floyd feel free to start a new thread


Thread hijacked? No one has posted any objection to this tangent we are on recently except you just now. 
It seems there is enough proof for David Walsh to go on camera and allude to Floyd's attempt to blackmail Radio Shack. If David Walsh is willing to do this I believe him as he has taken these types of steps in the past and shown he was correct in doing so.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 20:22 is Betsy talking about meeting Ferrari in a motorhome
> 
> You really should start a thread about this. It is clearly important to you


Your knowledge of this subject is limited as well. The film starts at 1:40 and counts down from there. I believe the thread has taken this tangent on its own and does not require a new thread. I was just giving you the source you requested earlier in the thread. As you are taking the time to confirm this source it is very clear this subject is very important to you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Thread hijacked? No one has posted any objection to this tangent we are on recently except you just now.
> It seems there is enough proof for David Walsh to go on camera and allude to Floyd's attempt to blackmail Radio Shack. If David Walsh is willing to do this I believe him as he has taken these types of steps in the past and shown he was correct in doing so.


Not sure why you are making things up. David does not say anything like that. 

In fact he very clearly says "*They don't realize* they are handling a bomb". Walsh is *clear* that *they don't know* Floyd is about to explode.

It appears you do not understand what Blackmail is. Floyd did not call up Johan and say "Either you give me a job or I tell everything". He asked for a job, nothing more. He did not threaten or extort. As Floyd himself says it was only months later, after he had approached several teams and been turned down, that he realized the sport held nothing for him so he might as well tell the truth

Floyd realized that the sport held nothing for him......but he never threatened them.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not sure why you are making things up. David does not say anything like that.
> 
> In fact he very clearly says "*They don't realize* they are handling a bomb". Walsh is *clear* that *they don't know* Floyd is about to explode.
> 
> It appears you do not understand what Blackmail is. Floyd did not call up Johan and say "Either you give me a job or I tell everything". He asked for a job, nothing more. He did not threaten or extort. As Floyd himself says it was only months later, after he had approached several teams and been turned down, that he realized the sport held nothing for him so he might as well tell the truth
> 
> Floyd realized that the sport held nothing for him......but he never threatened them.


Just after Walsh says the words you quoted in bold in your post he says "Floyd has offered them a chance to defuse the bomb, offer him a small job with the team and everything will be ok...they tell him to get lost and the bomb blows up in their faces"
You have taken Walsh's comments out of context to support your argument. 
Walsh is explaining textbook blackmail by Floyd, maybe it is actually you who does not understand how blackmail works.
You do not know what was said between Floyd and Radio Shack. If you did this would make you either Floyd, Johan, or Lance. Are you one of these guys? Walsh has spoken with Floyd and given his opinion of what Floyd said to JB and LA in this film. 
You are attempting in vain to use Walsh's opinion in context to support your baseless claim that there was no blackmail involved in Floyd's decision to break his silence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Just after Walsh says the words you quoted in bold in your post he says "Floyd has offered them a chance to defuse the bomb, offer him a small job with the team and everything will be ok...they tell him to get lost and the bomb blows up in their faces"
> You have taken Walsh's comments out of context to support your argument.
> Walsh is explaining textbook blackmail by Floyd, maybe it is actually you who does not understand how blackmail works.
> You do not know what was said between Floyd and Radio Shack. If you did this would make you either Floyd, Johan, or Lance. Are you one of these guys? Walsh has spoken with Floyd and given his opinion of what Floyd said to JB and LA in this film.
> You are attempting in vain to use Walsh's opinion in context to support your baseless claim that there was no blackmail involved in Floyd's decision to break his silence.


Hahaha, You have taken Walsh comments out of context to support your argument and frankly it is pathetic. 

Walsh is clear, very clear. Johan and Lance *did not realize* that Landis was going to explode. There were no threats. No blackmail. Nada. The emails also do not show any threats, blackmail, extortion. 

So back to your original claim. Please share with us any evidence that Floyd tried to blackmail Johan and Lance. So far you have presented nothing and intentionally misrepresented what Walsh said.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hahaha, You have taken Walsh comments out of context to support your argument and frankly it is pathetic.
> 
> Walsh is clear, very clear. Johan and Lance *did not realize* that Landis was going to explode. There were no threats. No blackmail. Nada. The emails also do not show any threats, blackmail, extortion.
> 
> So back to your original claim. Please share with us any evidence that Floyd tried to blackmail Johan and Lance. So far you have presented nothing and intentionally misrepresented what Walsh said.


You are sounding like the most tested athlete in the world. 
Walsh is very clear of Floyd's intentions in his interactions with Radio Shack. He clearly states that if Radio Shack had given Floyd a job he would have kept silent. There is also precedence in his own doping case which shows Floyd has used this tactic. There is overwhelming evidence of Floyd's intentions to blackmail his way into a job with Radio Shack. 
No of these guys came clean because they wanted to, they all came clean because they were caught. Their confessions were given under duress of Federal prosecution, or in Floyd's case he was broke and needed the money so he attempted to blackmail Radio Shack. 
So circling back to the OG claim. I have provided a source which clearly supports my claim that Floyd tried to blackmail Radio Shack. You have yet to provide a source to support your claim, other than a website and your statement that emails supporting your claim used to be published here but have sense been taking down. 
It is indeed you who has intentionally misrepresented Walsh in your argument, and you have provided absolutely nothing to support your position on Floyd blackmailing Radio Shack.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> You are sounding like the most tested athlete in the world.
> Walsh is very clear of Floyd's intentions in his interactions with Radio Shack. He clearly states that if Radio Shack had given Floyd a job he would have kept silent. There is also precedence in his own doping case which shows Floyd has used this tactic. There is overwhelming evidence of Floyd's intentions to blackmail his way into a job with Radio Shack.
> No of these guys came clean because they wanted to, they all came clean because they were caught. Their confessions were given under duress of Federal prosecution, or in Floyd's case he was broke and needed the money so he attempted to blackmail Radio Shack.
> So circling back to the OG claim. I have provided a source which clearly supports my claim that Floyd tried to blackmail Radio Shack. You have yet to provide a source to support your claim, other than a website and your statement that emails supporting your claim used to be published here but have sense been taking down.
> It is indeed you who has intentionally misrepresented Walsh in your argument, and you have provided absolutely nothing to support your position on Floyd blackmailing Radio Shack.


Walsh clearly states that Johan had no idea Floyd would explore. 

Walsh says very clearly 

*"They don't realize"*

He says this clearly. For there to have been attempted blackmail there would have to have been a threat. Walsh makes it very, very, clear this was not the case. There are also no threats in the emails

You have presented nothing to back up your claim that Floyd tried to blackmail Lance and Johan, in fact the only thing you have presented supports what I have been saying all along

You appear determined to highjack this thread to be about Floyd instead of Lance.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Walsh clearly states that Johan had no idea Floyd would explore.
> 
> Walsh says very clearly
> 
> *"They don't realize"*
> 
> He says this clearly. For there to have been attempted blackmail there would have to have been a threat. Walsh makes it very, very, clear this was not the case. There are also no threats in the emails
> 
> You have presented nothing to back up your claim that Floyd tried to blackmail Lance and Johan, in fact the only thing you have presented supports what I have been saying all along
> 
> You appear determined to highjack this thread to be about Floyd instead of Lance.


You're the only one complaining about the thread having taken this tangent. I'll assume others are enjoying the argument. 
"When Floyd has lost all his money and called JB for a job" "Floyd has offered them the chance to defuse the bomb" "give him a small job in the team and everything is ok" "They tell him to get lost and the bomb blows up in their faces" 
Walsh does say they don't realize what they're dealing with, but you're assuming JB is ignorant JB is not ignorant, he took a calculated risk and the scale finally tipped against him. In deed there was a lot of weight on the scale and while you or I might not have played that card, he did. 
Someone would look very ignorant to everyone on this forum if they were to believe that Floyd did not try to blackmail Radio Shack for a job. Walsh alludes to it, Kimmage alludes to it, what other things have those guys alluded to and been proven correct on?
There is precedence which shows Floyd is capable of blackmail. The media pitbulls of anti-doping are alluding to Floyd's attempted blackmail of Radio Shack. Hindsight being 20/20, there is overwhelming public opinion that Radio Shack willingly gives Landis a job if they had a chance to do this again.
I rest my case. 
At the very least I have given a source which everyone can use to create their own opinion. You have offered up a website which you claim used to have the evidence proving your point but has sense been taken down. Would you be able to cite a source claiming there were emails for or against blackmail.
I believe I've proven my point on Floyd, and that you may not understand how blackmail works.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> You're the only one complaining about the thread having taken this tangent. I'll assume others are enjoying the argument.
> "When Floyd has lost all his money and called JB for a job" "Floyd has offered them the chance to defuse the bomb" "give him a small job in the team and everything is ok" "They tell him to get lost and the bomb blows up in their faces"
> Walsh does say they don't realize what they're dealing with, but you're assuming JB is ignorant JB is not ignorant, he took a calculated risk and the scale finally tipped against him. In deed there was a lot of weight on the scale and while you or I might not have played that card, he did.
> Someone would look very ignorant to everyone on this forum if they were to believe that Floyd did not try to blackmail Radio Shack for a job. Walsh alludes to it, Kimmage alludes to it, what other things have those guys alluded to and been proven correct on?
> There is precedence which shows Floyd is capable of blackmail. The media pitbulls of anti-doping are alluding to Floyd's attempted blackmail of Radio Shack. Hindsight being 20/20, there is overwhelming public opinion that Radio Shack willingly gives Landis a job if they had a chance to do this again.
> I rest my case.
> At the very least I have given a source which everyone can use to create their own opinion. You have offered up a website which you claim used to have the evidence proving your point but has sense been taken down. Would you be able to cite a source claiming there were emails for or against blackmail.
> I believe I've proven my point on Floyd, and that you may not understand how blackmail works.


This post does zero to support your claim. 

Let us know if you ever find any evidence that Floyd tried to blackmail Lance and Johan.

Thanks :thumbsup:


----------



## SicBith

I have more than proven my point. Only the ignorant would believe Landis did not intend to blackmail Radio Shack. Please let us know when you're able to get those emails out of wherever you put them.

You're a peach buddy.


----------



## Local Hero

It certainly seems like Landis tried to blackmail Armstrong -- at the very least we can assume the omerta would continue should Landis be given a job. 

Also, didn't Landis try to intimidate Saint LeMond? “I think if you read what he posted about me, I think there’s another side of Floyd the public has not seen.”

It's strange that Dr. Falsetti has such hero worship for Landis.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Only the ignorant .


You invent a bunch of unsupported nonsense and when you are shown to be wrong you resort to insults. 

Same as always


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You invent a bunch of unsupported nonsense and when you are shown to be wrong you resort to insults.
> 
> Same as always


Is that a white flag?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You invent a bunch of unsupported nonsense and when you are shown to be wrong you resort to insults.
> 
> Same as always


I don't believe I insulted you, nor did I resort to using insults in defending my argument. I do see that you called me pathetic though, did you mean that as an insult?
All of my claims were supported, while none of yours were. If that is what you are getting at by saying same as always then I agree. 
If I were to insult you it would be very clear.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderator Note*

There is a very interesting discussion here regarding Landis and his actions, everyone please stick to those points/theories and not the perceived motivations of other posters, as that way leads to bad things.


----------



## peabody

I believe if the shack had given Floyd a job, we wouldn't be talking about any of this.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

peabody said:


> I believe if the shack had given Floyd a job, we wouldn't be talking about any of this.


Likely true, but that is not the claim.

The claim is blackmail. That Floyd threatened to go public if he was not given a job. There is zero evidence of that. Walsh is very clear that Johan and lance had no idea Landis was going to explode. The emails Lance made public have zero evidence of blackmail, in fact just the opposite. Dr. Kay kisses Armstrong's a$$ trying to get Landis a job. No threats, extortion, nada. No wonder lance took them down so fast.

The Landis blackmail claim is just another Armstrong myth. 

"Most tested athlete in history"
will be tested "Any time, any where" by Catlin 
didn't chasing down Simeoni, was just following wheels
"I'm not making money or taking a wage in my return to cycling" 
"500 tests"
" I stopped using Ferrari in 2002"
"I like our credibility" 
"Witch hunt"
"Unconstitutional"

The list of Armstrong lies is endless. The myth that Floyd tried to blackmail him is just another invention. Surprised that some fell for it


----------



## ucfquattroguy

Getting back to the original thread title...

My thoughts?  So freaking what if the guy wants to help raise money for cancer research. How is this somehow related to his actions taken during his time as a racer? He could very well be the biggest A-Hole in the world, but that shouldn't automatically assume there's something nefarious about caring about (insert whatever cause here).

Just my two cents.


----------



## David Loving

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sir duke again."

I like to compare Lance to Maurice Garin, the defending champion of the tour who, in 1904, got off his bike and took the train. The first of many cheaters. [Lanterne Rouge, page 25].


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Likely true, but that is not the claim.
> 
> The claim is blackmail. That Floyd threatened to go public if he was not given a job. There is zero evidence of that. Walsh is very clear that Johan and lance had no idea Landis was going to explode. The emails Lance made public have zero evidence of blackmail, in fact just the opposite. Dr. Kay kisses Armstrong's a$$ trying to get Landis a job. No threats, extortion, nada. No wonder lance took them down so fast.
> 
> The Landis blackmail claim is just another Armstrong myth.
> 
> "Most tested athlete in history"
> will be tested "Any time, any where" by Catlin
> didn't chasing down Simeoni, was just following wheels
> "I'm not making money or taking a wage in my return to cycling"
> "500 tests"
> " I stopped using Ferrari in 2002"
> "I like our credibility"
> "Witch hunt"
> "Unconstitutional"
> 
> The list of Armstrong lies is endless. The myth that Floyd tried to blackmail him is just another invention. Surprised that some fell for it


Walsh certainly believes blackmailing Radio Shack for a job was indeed Landis's intention when he reached out to them. He shows this very clearly for all to hear. While some will continue to argue this was not the case and the blackmail theory was cooked up by Radio Shack there has been no proof to support this claim posted.
I don't know Landis personally, but I do believe him to fall prey to desperation at times. Going after Lemond, crowd funding for his legal defense, believing he could gain 8 minutes in one stage and not get caught for PEDs. All desperate decisions made with little thought of the consequences. Funny thing is he stands to make the most $ off this deal if the Fed proves its case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Walsh certainly believes blackmailing Radio Shack for a job was indeed Landis's intention when he reached out to them.


If believes this then why does he not say that? In fact he says the opposite. He says that "They don't realize". If Landis tried to blackmail, demand a job in exchange for keeping quite, wouldn't they realize the threat? 

They did not realize because there was no threat. There was no blackmail. Floyd asked for a job. His email was hardly a threat, it was titled "Give me a Call",



> "I'd like to know if there is any possibility of riding with you guys next year. Hope you are well. Thanks. Floyd."


Johan said no. It was not until the following year that Floyd went public. 

So far you have provided nothing to support your claim of blackmail. Let us know if you ever find anything


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If believes this then why does he not say that? In fact he says the opposite. He says that "They don't realize". If Landis tried to blackmail, demand a job in exchange for keeping quite, wouldn't they realize the threat?
> 
> They did not realize because there was no threat. There was no blackmail. Floyd asked for a job. His email was hardly a threat, it was titled "Give me a Call",
> 
> 
> 
> Johan said no. It was not until the following year that Floyd went public.
> 
> So far you have provided nothing to support your claim of blackmail. Let us know if you ever find anything


We've been through this before. After he said they didn't realize a threat he continued on to say (I'm paraphrasing this) give me a small job and this all goes away, they didn't and the bomb went off.
There is sufficient proof in my source to support this argument. 
It is you who has cooked up emails and email names, website where they used to be, quotes which you want us to believe are in the body of these emails. You have given us nothing to support this nonsense, worse yet you keep using a tired and beaten defense. You've also used information out of context to try and defend your stand, true cry of desperation, while I have given my source for all to watch and form their own opinion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> We've been through this before. After he said they didn't realize a threat he continued on to say (I'm paraphrasing this) give me a small job and this all goes away, they didn't and the bomb went off.
> There is sufficient proof in my source to support this argument.
> It is you who has cooked up emails and email names, website where they used to be, quotes which you want us to believe are in the body of these emails. You have given us nothing to support this nonsense, worse yet you keep using a tired and beaten defense. You've also used information out of context to try and defend your stand, true cry of desperation, while I have given my source for all to watch and form their own opinion.


You have given a source that directly contradicts your position and you have spent the last couple of days trying to twist it into something it isn't

Armstrong took the emails down quickly as it was clear that they did not support his claim of blackmail, in fact they did the opposite. Luckily a simple google search and you can find them cut and pasted here. 

Armstrong statement imminent! Email exchanges to be revealed | Cyclingnews Forum

Can you show us the blackmail part? 

Give a rest dude, you are embarrassing yourself


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have given a source that directly contradicts your position and you have spent the last couple of days trying to twist it into something it isn't
> 
> Armstrong took the emails down quickly as it was clear that they did not support his claim of blackmail, in fact they did the opposite. Luckily a simple google search and you can find them cut and pasted here.
> 
> Armstrong statement imminent! Email exchanges to be revealed | Cyclingnews Forum
> 
> Can you show us the blackmail part?
> 
> Give a rest dude, you are embarrassing yourself


Finally you give us some information everyone can use to form an opinion. Thank you. While I breezed through these I did see that Kay wrote "Floyd has nothing to lose and does not care about the consequences" the words stuck with me, check on the context yourself.
Again your knowledge of how blackmail works is stunning. I Don't understand why Floyd or his crew would not come out and say in email form give me a job or I start talking. What does seem evident in a quick look at these is the increasing desperation to get Radio Shack to engage. I'm sure their choice to not engage was prompted by legal advice as Floyd had shown the level of desperation he was in. You have no idea why they were taken down, but I would suggest it was advice offered by their legal team as I'm sure they were already looking at potential legal actions. Any public offering of information is subject to intent arguements.
What is embarrassing is losing an argument, playing the don't hijack the thread card, continuing to argue your opinion in vain, and then finally showing the source which you have based your argument on and it does not add any support your argument, other than Dr. Kay does sound like a great guy. That's embarrassing.
Nibili looked great today eh.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Finally you give us some information everyone can use to form an opinion. Thank you. While I breezed through these I did see that Kay wrote "Floyd has nothing to lose and does not care about the consequences" the words stuck with me, check on the context yourself.
> Again your knowledge of how blackmail works is stunning. I Don't understand why Floyd or his crew would not come out and say in email form give me a job or I start talking. What does seem evident in a quick look at these is the increasing desperation to get Radio Shack to engage. I'm sure their choice to not engage was prompted by legal advice as Floyd had shown the level of desperation he was in. You have no idea why they were taken down, but I would suggest it was advice offered by their legal team as I'm sure they were already looking at potential legal actions. Any public offering of information is subject to intent arguements.
> What is embarrassing is losing an argument, playing the don't hijack the thread card, continuing to argue your opinion in vain, and then finally showing the source which you have based your argument on and it does not add any support your argument, other than Dr. Kay does sound like a great guy. That's embarrassing.
> Nibili looked great today eh.


Thanks for proving my point. 

Let us know when you find anything to support your claim Landis tried to blackmail Armstrong. 

Thanks :thumbsup:


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Let us know when you find anything to support your claim Landis tried to blackmail Armstrong.
> 
> Thanks :thumbsup:


Your point of proving Landis tried to blackmail Radio Shack? Yes I agree.
My source was given and it did support my argument enough to have others agree to it. I believe there is sufficient information for people to make a opinion on if Landis did indeed intend to blackmail Radio Shack for a job. 
Your source offered up some emails written in an effort to lure Radio Shack into a public conversation on on a sensitive subject and they were smart enough not to engage in that method of conversation. Were there phone calls made? I will says there is enough evidence of intent to say yes someone from Landis's group called someone from the Radio Shack group and had a conversation. Do you or I know the nature of those conversation? No...because when dealing with sensitive subjects intelligent people don't write an email they pick up a phone. Landis had motive, showed intent, and when he did not get a job he followed through with this threat. Classic blackmail. Even you have admitted that if Radio Shack had given Floyd a job we would not be having this conversation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Your point of proving Landis tried to blackmail Radio Shack? Yes I agree.
> My source was given and it did support my argument enough to have others agree to it. I believe there is sufficient information for people to make a opinion on if Landis did indeed intend to blackmail Radio Shack for a job.
> Your source offered up some emails written in an effort to lure Radio Shack into a public conversation on on a sensitive subject and they were smart enough not to engage in that method of conversation. Were there phone calls made? I will says there is enough evidence of intent to say yes someone from Landis's group called someone from the Radio Shack group and had a conversation. Do you or I know the nature of those conversation? No...because when dealing with sensitive subjects intelligent people don't write an email they pick up a phone. Landis had motive, showed intent, and when he did not get a job he followed through with this threat. Classic blackmail. Even you have admitted that if Radio Shack had given Floyd a job we would not be having this conversation.


Let us know if you find any evidence of Landis trying to blackmail Armstrong as your rambling conspiracy theories do zero to support your claim.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Let us know if you find any evidence of Landis trying to blackmail Armstrong as your rambling conspiracy theories do zero to support your claim.


Are we going to play your typical "always get the last word in" game. You might not be part of the "us", but "us" was given a source which, taken as a whole and not out of context, supports my opinion. The "us" rests its case. The "you" have a game to play.


----------



## Local Hero

Dr False:

Brent Kay wrote this to Landis: 

_ *I don’t think anyone is calling your bluff now*. I am trying to make that very clear to everyone involved; Floyd has nothing to lose and he does not care about any consequences of his actions._

What was Landis's bluff?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Dr False:
> 
> Brent Kay wrote this to Landis:
> 
> _ *I don’t think anyone is calling your bluff now*. I am trying to make that very clear to everyone involved; Floyd has nothing to lose and he does not care about any consequences of his actions._
> 
> What was Landis's bluff?


Gotta laugh that you intentionally left out the paragraph directly above it as makes clear there was never an extortion attempt. 



> My idea is completely in line with *your adamant stance that you do not want anything out of this. I completely understand that you don’t want or need money out of this. *Despite all the expert’s calculations on how you lost $20 million on this whole thing I know you need nearly nothing to live. You always talked about how your dad would never spend a dime on anything and you have the same trait, I understand that you need almost nothing to survive. I know *you are true to your word after Lance accused Rahsaan of some conspiracy and/or extortion scheme and your first decision was to have the press conference immediately to prove that wrong.* I take great pride in the fact that I was able to talk you out of that.


You also left out the first part of that quote "So to speak". If you are so certain why the selective editing? 

As you know email came a year after Landis' request for a job at Radioshack had been turned down. Landis had already moved on and was riding for another team. Landis had invited the ToC organizer to sit in on his meeting with USADA. Dr. Kay is trying to talk him off the ledge. If you read the emails Landis had already met with USADA a month earlier. 

Nowhere is there any extortion, in fact the opposite. It is clear Floyd wants nothing. 

No wonder Lance pulled down the emails so fast


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Gotta laugh that you intentionally left out the paragraph directly above it as makes clear there was never an extortion attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> You also left out the first part of that quote "So to speak". If you are so certain why the selective editing?
> 
> As you know email came a year after Landis' request for a job at Radioshack had been turned down. Landis had already moved on and was riding for another team. Landis had invited the ToC organizer to sit in on his meeting with USADA. Dr. Kay is trying to talk him off the ledge. If you read the emails Landis had already met with USADA a month earlier.
> 
> Nowhere is there any extortion, in fact the opposite. It is clear Floyd wants nothing.
> 
> No wonder Lance pulled down the emails so fast


I see an example of Dr. Kay using language in emails to build a defense against a extortion compliant.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Gotta laugh that you intentionally left out the paragraph directly above it as makes clear there was never an extortion attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> You also left out the first part of that quote "So to speak". If you are so certain why the selective editing?
> 
> As you know email came a year after Landis' request for a job at Radioshack had been turned down. Landis had already moved on and was riding for another team. Landis had invited the ToC organizer to sit in on his meeting with USADA. Dr. Kay is trying to talk him off the ledge. If you read the emails Landis had already met with USADA a month earlier.
> 
> Nowhere is there any extortion, in fact the opposite. It is clear Floyd wants nothing.
> 
> No wonder Lance pulled down the emails so fast


So what was the bluff?


----------



## BacDoc

Local Hero said:


> So what was the bluff?


+1

Ya, what was the bluff?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

BacDoc said:


> +1
> 
> Ya, what was the bluff?


He had been telling the organizers of the ToC he was going to talk to USADA and he had done exactly that. Lance had been portraying Floyd as a drunk, rambling, fool with mental issues. 

Kay, rather foolishly, is trying to still get Floyd's team into the ToC. He looks like a complete dork in those emails. Kissing Armstrong's ass, trying to get him to not interfere with Floyd's team getting into the ToC. 

He does however confirm that contrary to the elaborate conspiracy theories that some have been pushing the last few days that Floyd was not looking for any money to keep quite.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I see an example of Dr. Kay using language in emails to build a defense against a extortion compliant.


Of course you would

Funny that Lance never filed a complaint, took down the emails, and made reference to blackmail again. He knew that his attempt to paint Floyd as a drunk, blackmailing, mental case had crossed the line into slander and witness intimidation. 

Note there is zero mention of extortion in the emails. None. In fact by the time those emails had been sent Floyd had already talked to USADA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> So what was the bluff?


So what do you think Floyd was looking for? Where is the extortion? He had already talked with USADA, what was he trying to leverage?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Those emails actually do reveal a blackmail effort. Lance is clearly pressuring Floyd to be quite. Smearing him as a crazy drunk, threatening to "Tweet". 

Lance's blackmail attempt did not work, the horse had already left the barn


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So what do you think Floyd was looking for? Where is the extortion? He had already talked with USADA, what was he trying to leverage?


It's not my job to come up with an alternative explanation. You're the one saying there was no threat. 

If he was not trying to leverage anything, what was the bluff?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Those emails actually do reveal a blackmail effort. Lance is clearly pressuring Floyd to be quite. Smearing him as a crazy drunk, threatening to "Tweet".
> 
> Lance's blackmail attempt did not work, the horse had already left the barn


But it was not Lance saying those things, was it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> It's not my job to come up with an alternative explanation. You're the one saying there was no threat.
> 
> If he was not trying to leverage anything, what was the bluff?


Did you even read the emails? 

in the month prior to the email Floyd had sent several emails to the Organizer of the ToC and the head of USA Cycling saying that he was going to meet with USADA and tell them about doping in the sport. He asked them to join him. Messick wrote a tepid response and Johnson ignored him. It is clear that is what Kay is referring to.

Floyd makes his reason for the meeting clear



> , I care deeply about the young people who aspire to become professional cyclists and hope that you also want them to be able to live that dream without having to make the choice about weather or not to use performance enhancing drugs


Nothing about getting a spot on the team. Nada. 

Kay also says this 


> your adamant stance that you do not want anything out of this. I completely understand that you don’t want or need money out of this


Have you found anything that contradicts this? Is Kay lying?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> But it was not Lance saying those things, was it?



Did you even read the emails? In Floyd's email to Lance



> I'd like to remind you that calling my close friends with allegations of alcoholism and insanity will be ineffective


He mentions it again when he invites lance to his 2nd meeting with USADA



> thought this might also be a good time for you, Mr. Armstrong, to clarify your position on my alleged "alcoholism and psychological disorders" with Dr. Kay in person as he has indicated to me that your assertions were taken by him as an indictment against his medical practices.





> I'm also going to invite Dr. Kay since he has been brought into this episode as the result of a threatening phone call from Mr. Armstrong last monday


Armstrong tried to harass Floyd into remaining quite. It did not work


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you even read the emails?
> 
> in the month prior to the email Floyd had sent several emails to the Organizer of the ToC and the head of USA Cycling saying that he was going to meet with USADA and tell them about doping in the sport. He asked them to join him. Messick wrote a tepid response and Johnson ignored him. It is clear that is what Kay is referring to.


Landis was bluffing about going to USADA?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you even read the emails? In Floyd's email to Lance
> 
> 
> 
> He mentions it again when he invites lance to his 2nd meeting with USADA


So twice we have Landis talking about Armstrong's threats. 

And we are to believe this person, because they are saying something bad about Armstrong. We do not have to hear Armstrong say these things. We always assume someone is being honest if they say something bad about Armstrong. 

Does that sum it up?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> So twice we have Landis talking about Armstrong's threats.
> 
> And we are to believe this person, because they are saying something bad about Armstrong. We do not have to hear Armstrong say these things. We always assume someone is being honest if they say something bad about Armstrong.
> 
> Does that sum it up?


Did you believe all the lies lance told or just the one about Landis trying to blackmail him?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Of course you would
> 
> Funny that Lance never filed a complaint, took down the emails, and made reference to blackmail again. He knew that his attempt to paint Floyd as a drunk, blackmailing, mental case had crossed the line into slander and witness intimidation.
> 
> Note there is zero mention of extortion in the emails. None. In fact by the time those emails had been sent Floyd had already talked to USADA.


Just a real quick note for some who are basking in the glory of days long past while currently walking in a fog of confusion. If radio shack was to file a blackmail complaint it would be admitting guilt at a time when they were not ready to do so. Even if they were dragged into an open blackmail discussion it would cast a shadow. it wasn't due to being intimidated by a slander suit as I'm pretty sure he knew there were much bigger legal issue coming at him than a slander suit by Floyd.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you believe all the lies lance told or just the one about Landis trying to blackmail him?


Do you believe all the lies Landis told? They all lied about their racing careers being legal. Landis went after Lemond in a very personal, bordering on evil way in an effort to blackmail him as well. Lemond wisely shoved it up Floyd's a**.
Using most of the Postal's riders belief in telling the truth has been proven to be a reference used by the foolish.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Using most of the Postal's riders belief in telling the truth has been proven to be a reference used by the foolish.


Agree, it is amazing some still believe Armstrong's nonsense. Believing that Landis tried to blackmail Lance when there is zero evidence to support it is pretty foolish. 

Is that the only Armstrong lie you still believe or are there others?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agree, it is amazing some still believe Armstrong's nonsense. Believing that Landis tried to blackmail Lance when there is zero evidence to support it is pretty foolish.
> 
> Is that the only Armstrong lie you still believe or are there others?


I'm not sure you understand what you are saying. 
I'm putting my faith into what Walsh has said, written, and inferred. You are the one backing Landis with his own words or those of his best buddy Dr. Kay. I believe you are closer to supporting the Armstrong/Postal lies than I am. My source is a trusted journalist while yours is a proven liar, doper, blackmailer, and thief. 
Trolling for an arguement on Armstrong's lies is a desperate act. That ship sailed a number of years ago yet you still try to bring it up whenever you can. One might think you're hoping to stay relevant like a disgraced road biker I've read about recently.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I'm not sure you understand what you are saying.
> I'm putting my faith into what Walsh has said, written, and inferred.


It is good you are coming to your senses. 

Walsh is very clear, Johan and lance had no idea Floyd would come clean. None. Floyd never threaten them when he asked for a job. When Floyd could not get job with Johan he approached JV and eventually got a consulting job with Rock Racing. Do you really think Johan was scared Floyd was going to spill the beans if he was willing to work for Michael Ball? Really? 

If there was a blackmail attempt they would have realized it but, as Walsh says, they did not. There was no blackmail attempt, not sure why you pretend there was one. 

You have presented zero evidence to support this fantasy so maybe it is time to move on, are there any other Armstrong lies you would like to try to resuscitate?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is good you are coming to your senses.
> 
> Walsh is very clear, Johan and lance had no idea Floyd would come clean. None. Floyd never threaten them when he asked for a job. When Floyd could not get job with Johan he approached JV and eventually got a consulting job with Rock Racing. Do you really think Johan was scared Floyd was going to spill the beans if he was willing to work for Michael Ball? Really?
> 
> If there was a blackmail attempt they would have realized it but, as Walsh says, they did not. There was no blackmail attempt, not sure why you pretend there was one.
> 
> You have presented zero evidence to support this fantasy so maybe it is time to move on, are there any other Armstrong lies you would like to try to resuscitate?


Still playing your last word in game eh. 
I'm not sure you are thinking straight once again. Walsh was very clear on Floyd's intentions and seeing how you have not spoken with Walsh or Floyd on this matter I'll choose to trust his judgement rather than yours. 
Floyd has shown motive, intent, and a history of this behavior.
In the court of public opinion I've shown enough evidence, while you have shown your willingness to further embarrass yourself with your crusade to keep LA on the top of the doping forum. Well done.


----------



## jaggrin

I'm just glad that the tour, cycling and world order survived a person riding a bicycle on the road.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Still playing your last word in game eh.
> I'm not sure you are thinking straight once again. Walsh was very clear on Floyd's intentions and seeing how you have not spoken with Walsh or Floyd on this matter I'll choose to trust his judgement rather than yours.
> Floyd has shown motive, intent, and a history of this behavior.
> In the court of public opinion I've shown enough evidence, while you have shown your willingness to further embarrass yourself with your crusade to keep LA on the top of the doping forum. Well done.


Actually I have spoken with both of them on it. I know why the emails were taken down and why Lance never mentioned it again......but it has been fun watching you flail around trying to re-write history


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jaggrin said:


> I'm just glad that the tour, cycling and world order survived a person riding a bicycle on the road.


Thanks for getting the thread back on topic. The revisionist history nonsense is getting boring. 

Lance returning to the scene of his greatest fraud in an attempt to force himself into the limelight failed. Donations were far below the goal. Media coverage focused on the Armstrong train-wreak and not the charity.

I don't see anyone saying lance cannot ride his bike or raise money. He should focus on events like this | AspenTimes.com instead of crashing the Tour.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for getting the thread back on topic. The revisionist history nonsense is getting boring.
> 
> Lance returning to the scene of his greatest fraud in an attempt to force himself into the limelight failed. Donations were far below the goal. Media coverage focused on the Armstrong train-wreak and not the charity.
> 
> I don't see anyone saying lance cannot ride his bike or raise money. He should focus on events like this | AspenTimes.com instead of *crashing the Tour.*


He didn't crash the Tour, he was invited to ride in a charity event.

Do you need me to link to the definition of crashing?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> He didn't crash the Tour, he was invited to ride in a charity event.
> 
> Do you need me to link to the definition of crashing?


You remember when you were in college and that one weirdo junkie that nobody wanted to be around suddenly showed up at the party?......that is crashing


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You remember when you were in college and that one weirdo junkie that nobody wanted to be around suddenly showed up at the party?......that is crashing


Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gate_crashing




> party crashing is the act of attending an invitation-only event when not invited.[1]


Urban Dictionary: crash the party



> Attend a party without being invited. You just show up.


Crash a party - Idiom Definition - UsingEnglish.com



> If you crash a party, or are a gatecrasher, you go somewhere you haven't been invited to.


Crash | Define Crash at Dictionary.com



> Informal.
> to gain admittance to, even though uninvited:
> to crash a party.
> to enter without a ticket, permission, etc.:
> to crash the gate at a football game.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Here you go:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gate_crashing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban Dictionary: crash the party
> 
> 
> 
> Crash a party - Idiom Definition - UsingEnglish.com
> 
> 
> 
> Crash | Define Crash at Dictionary.com


Yup. Looks like we agree. Crashing the Tour's party was pretty lame. 

Nice work on the Colorado event though. Should do more of that


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup. Looks like we agree. Crashing the Tour's party was pretty lame.
> 
> Nice work on the Colorado event though. Should do more of that


Stop being so dramatic. Armstrong didn't crash the tour. 

So what was Floyd's bluff?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Stop being so dramatic. Armstrong didn't crash the tour.
> 
> So what was Floyd's bluff?


Dramatic? Why make this personal? Odd. 

Your question has been answered multiple times.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Actually I have spoken with both of them on it. I know why the emails were taken down and why Lance never mentioned it again......but it has been fun watching you flail around trying to re-write history


Ahh. You too eh...
While I've always found Walsh to be pleasant, but a little intense, Floyd is like a college buddy. I was in the room when Floyd wrote those emails. He was spouting off about trying to get a point across while remaining vague as he knew Radio Shack would come after him if he wrote in an email exactly what he planned to do. It was a shocker that a few weeks later I was hanging out with a friend in Aspen, and we went over to his neighbor's house to have a couple Ultras on his deck. He asked us if we thought he should rethink his displaying antagonistic emails which were sent to him on the Internet. I told him to ask his lawyer as I'd had 1 too many Ultras.
All three of those mentioned a how many people fabricate sources and relationships on the Internet, proving their point is so important they will say anything.
I don't believe you have spoken with either of these guys about this subject. I do believe there might be very expensive signed yellow jersey on your wall which you wish you didn't buy.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Actually I have spoken with both of them on it on TWITTER.


Oh. 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you believe all the lies lance told or just the one about Landis trying to blackmail him?


What's with your binary thinking? 

And why didn't you answer this question: 


Local Hero said:


> Landis was bluffing about going to USADA?


Doctor False: 

WHAT WAS LANDIS'S BLUFF? 

I know why you do not answer this: It seems clear to everyone but you that Landis threatened to go to the authorities. Armstrong called this bluff. It was a mistake, as Walsh said, Armstrong had no idea what Landis was capable of doing. 

Actually, this is clear to you too. You know what Landis threatened to go postal.


----------



## love4himies

SicBith said:


> Ahh. You too eh...
> While I've always found Walsh to be pleasant, but a little intense, Floyd is like a college buddy. I was in the room when Floyd wrote those emails. He was spouting off about trying to get a point across while remaining vague as he knew Radio Shack would come after him if he wrote in an email exactly what he planned to do. It was a shocker that a few weeks later I was hanging out with a friend in Aspen, and we went over to his neighbor's house to have a couple Ultras on his deck. He asked us if we thought he should rethink his displaying antagonistic emails which were sent to him on the Internet. I told him to ask his lawyer as I'd had 1 too many Ultras.
> All three of those mentioned a how many people fabricate sources and relationships on the Internet, proving their point is so important they will say anything.
> I don't believe you have spoken with either of these guys about this subject. I do believe there might be very expensive signed yellow jersey on your wall which you wish you didn't buy.


He's a fly on the wall, don't you know, and has spoken to everybody and has access to everything "Lance". When you disprove his "theories", he gets a bit personal to try to throw it off.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> And why didn't you answer this question:
> 
> 
> Doctor False:
> 
> WHAT WAS LANDIS'S BLUFF?
> 
> I know why you do not answer this: It seems clear to everyone but you that Landis threatened to go to the authorities.


As usual with the insults and the baiting. No need to modify my posts. 

If you took time to actually read what has been written here you would see that I already addressed this in detail here
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/amstrongs-ride-charity-345354-14.html#post4891434

Instead you pretend it has not been addressed and invent conspiracy theories that there is zero evidence to support. 

There is nothing to support the claim that Floyd threaten Lance or Johan if they did not give him a job. Nothing. Walsh is clear that Lance and Johan had no idea Landis would explode. The emails Armstrong released are from a year after they turned him down for a job and are between Dr. Kay and Messick. There is zero mention of a threat, extortion, Nothing. In fact just the opposite, it is clear that Landis wants nothing


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Actually, this is clear to you too. You know what Landis threatened to go postal.


I was glad they made that discovery.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual with the insults and the baiting. No need to modify my posts.
> 
> If you took time to actually read what has been written here you would see that I already addressed this in detail here
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/amstrongs-ride-charity-345354-14.html#post4891434
> 
> Instead you pretend it has not been addressed and invent conspiracy theories that there is zero evidence to support.
> 
> There is nothing to support the claim that Floyd threaten Lance or Johan if they did not give him a job. Nothing. Walsh is clear that Lance and Johan had no idea Landis would explode. The emails Armstrong released are from a year after they turned him down for a job and are between Dr. Kay and Messick. There is zero mention of a threat, extortion, Nothing. In fact just the opposite, it is clear that Landis wants nothing


OK but what was Landis bluffing about? 

What was the bluff?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderator Note*

We have reached the point in every Armstrong thread where the posts starting getting personal, so let's everyone dial that back.

Also, please do not quote someone then modify the quote. While the intent is parody rather than to mislead, in general its still a bad idea. Same with modifying someones username- its just going to lead to tears, namecalling, infractions, posting vacation ect, and nobody wants that. 

//Now back to your regularly scheduled Doping Forum debate.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> OK but what was Landis bluffing about?
> 
> What was the bluff?


We get it, reading is not your thing. 

As I explained, and made clear in the emails, Landis had invited Johnson and Messick to his meetings with USADA. He told both of them the issues with doping in cycling. He explained how he did not want young racers to have to make the choices he did. He said clearly that he was going to talk to USADA They both gave weak, or no, response. The head of USA Cycling and the head of the largest race in America essentially ignored him. 

Dr. Kay writes reiterates that Floyd does not want anything and that now that he has gone to USADA he 



> So to speak, I don’t think anyone is calling your bluff now. I am trying to make that very clear to everyone involved; Floyd has nothing to lose and he does not care about any consequences of his actions.


Messick and Johnson did not think Floyd would tell the truth. Perhaps they would have taken his invitations seriously if they did. This has already been explained to you multiple times and is clear in the emails so not sure why you pretend it has not been addressed. 

Now your turn. Show us where Landis says if he does not get a spot on Radioshack that he will go public. Please try to do it without any insults, baiting, modifying of posts 

Thanks :thumbsup:


----------



## SicBith

According to you these emails were written a year before Floyd went to USADA with his info. Isn't that usually how blackmail works? Here's how I see it. He went to Radio Shack for a gig. Those guys don't realize Floyd would follow through on his threat, especially when they say no and he finds a job with another team. 8 months goes by, that other job either sucks or drys up and he's back on the phone with Radio Shack asking for a gig. Once again they call his bluff, but now he is in a financial corner and he comes out fighting. The timeframe you mention actually supports my argument. Thanks for clearing that up. It also speaks to what the "bluff" comment was in those emails.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> According to you these emails were written a year before Floyd went to USADA with his info. .


Not sure how you got that. Did you actually read them? 

The emails were written a year *after* he had been turned down by Johan for a job with Radioshack. Most of the emails are from *after* he had gone to USADA. How was Floyd supposed to get a job on Radioshack if he had already talked with USADA?

The emails have no threats. No extortion. No blackmail. In fact there is the opposite, it is clear that Floyd does not want money. He wants for young riders to not be forced into making the same choices he did. When he invites the head of USA Cycling and the head of America's largest race they blow him off. 



> Doping will probably never be gone for good but I'm sure you'll agree that the athletes in the future will have an easier decision if those, like yourself and Steve Johnson, in power in the sport will have made the morally and ethically correct choice at this very moment when there is a chance to reverse the trend and shed light on the magnitude of the problem.
> 
> Let me know if you'd like to be part of the problem or part of the solution.





> from a moral and ethical standpoint we stand in stark contrast.


Your conspiracy theories are not supported by any facts.


----------



## SicBith

Ahh yes I got the before / after mixed up, I stand corrected, thank you. Please take the part of me saying "before" out of the conversation, as the "after" is correct. 

This actually was my intention in the scenario I presented, it doesn't really make sense if the emails were written before Radio Shack said no, it wouldn't make much sense. As they were written after Radio Shack turned him down and in the time between he went to USADA it makes much more sense. As a heads up, when Floyd played his card of course he is going to put himself in the best light. It's for the kids... lets make the cycling world a better place... I've spent the last number of years ripping the cycling world off, so by coming clean I can now sleep at night. 
Oh by the way if Radio Shack had given me a job I would not be talking to you, but this won't come out until David Walsh speaks to my intentions and the fact that Radio Shack did not believe I would follow through with my threats after all the lies I had told to the cycling industry and public.
You need to get past the whole "emails did not contain any threats" as I've said before any person of reasonable intelligence would not put incriminating emails out for the world to see. 
You are blind to the facts, and that is ok. I believe Floyd's actions and intentions are well documented.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> You are blind to the facts, and that is ok. I believe Floyd's actions and intentions are well documented.


What facts am I blind to? You claim Floyd tried to blackmail Johan and lance. If the blackmail is well documented then you should be able to share that documentation with us. 

So far you, and Lance, have provided nothing to back up your claim. No wonder Lance dropped it and never mentioned it again.


----------



## Fireform

No matter what the facts are, they provide unassailable evidence of blackmail. 

I see how this works.


----------



## SicBith

With all of this I have stayed consistent that my opinion,belief is that Floyd did indeed have motive, intent, and precedent showing he is capable of blackmailing Radio Shack for a job. 
Walsh's statements played a big part in forming my opinion. Walsh clearly states Floyd's intention of using his history with JB and LA to secure himself a job, he also says Radio Shack did not know what Floyd is capable of. He does not say either of them didn't believe Floyd would follow though on his threat. These emails bouncing around do not alter my opinion as I would never incriminate myself by describing my illegal intentions or any indirect intentions in an email which everyone knows NEVER go away. I'm clearly confirming my opinion and not letting DF sway it with his opinion of the emails he found on the intrawebs and again in my opinion a fabricated conversation with both Walsh and Floyd on this subject. Nothing is unassailable.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> With all of this I have stayed consistent that my opinion,belief is that Floyd did indeed have motive, intent, and precedent showing he is capable of blackmailing Radio Shack for a job.
> Walsh's statements played a big part in forming my opinion. Walsh clearly states Floyd's intention of using his history with JB and LA to secure himself a job, he also says Radio Shack did not know what Floyd is capable of. He does not say either of them didn't believe Floyd would follow though on his threat. These emails bouncing around do not alter my opinion as I would never incriminate myself by describing my illegal intentions or any indirect intentions in an email which everyone knows NEVER go away. I'm clearly confirming my opinion and not letting DF sway it with his opinion of the emails he found on the intrawebs and again in my opinion a fabricated conversation with both Walsh and Floyd on this subject. Nothing is unassailable.


Let us know if you find any facts to support your opinion, so far you have presented none. 

You need to stop intentionally twisting Walsh's words in an attempt to pretend he shares your opinion. He does not and pretending he does makes you look silly.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



> please do not quote someone then modify the quote


I only said that one day ago. ONE DAY. *Let me make this clear- the next offense gets a long posting vacation*.


----------



## SicBith

DF....I've given Walsh as a source for the last week and you still refuse to recognize him as a qualified source. I'm not sure what you need to do so, but this is an issue only you can solve. Look within yourself for the answer, it is there my friend.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> DF....I've given Walsh as a source for the last week and you still refuse to recognize him as a qualified source. I'm not sure what you need to do so, but this is an issue only you can solve. Look within yourself for the answer, it is there my friend.


You have tried to twist Walsh's words to support your invented narrative and it makes you appear desperate to find anything to support your inventions. 

Walsh is clear. He says very clearly "They *don't realize* they are handling a bomb"

If Floyd had indeed threatened to blackmail Lance and Johan do you think that might have been at least a little hint that they were handling a bomb? If he had actually threatened to blackmail them do you not think they would have realize this? They did not realize it because it never happened. Lance never presented any evidence it happened and quickly backed away from his claims that it happened because he knew it was unsupportable and could be seen as slander. 

Lance was smart enough to back away from the claim, but he knew many groupies bought it and would continue to smear Floyd for years with his invention.


----------



## SicBith

If you can comprehend the words Walsh used in the movie you would see that it is actually you who have twisted Walsh's word around in an effort to sway opinion. It doesn't seem that anyone is buyin what you're sellin though.
Walsh does say they don't realize what Landis was capable of. I believe Walsh was referring to the threat of breaking omertà if they don't give him a job.
I don't think Lance was afraid of a slander suit. If Floyd did follow through with his plan Lance had bigger issues to deal with. It would make sense to me that Radio Shack backed off the blackmail tangent because if they were to claim that Floyd did indeed try to blackmail them it would also cast a shadow back onto them.
I'm truly surprised you still let your anger at LA blind your ability to make a clear argument. Your words and comments liken you to Betsy Andreu. This kind of anger is not healthy.


----------



## David Loving

...and tiresome.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I'm truly surprised you still let your anger at LA blind your ability to make a clear argument. Your words and comments liken you to Betsy Andreu. This kind of anger is not healthy.


Resorting to insults and attacking the poster instead of addressing the facts of the discussion only reinforces the weakness of your position. Repeating lies and twisting words did not work so you go with insults. 

Before you continue to try to twist Walsh's words to fit your narrative I suggest you read David's book, Seven deadly sins. He goes into detail about this topic. There is zero mention of extortion, blackmail, Nada

David writes in detail about how, after being turned down by Johan, that Floyd moved on. He worked for Rock Racing as a consultant, started racing for Ouch, seemed to be on track.....and then a series of events made it clear to him that he would never be accepted back into the sport. That the sport would never change. That series of events is made clear in the book. Nothing to do with blackmail and extortion. Much more than his job request being turned down. 

Is the only Armstrong lie you intend to resuscitate and defend with nonsense?


----------



## SicBith

I'm not sure why you think I'm insulting you. Betsy has a very strong personality and conviction, these are compliments to many. I'm sorry you feel those attributes are insulting to you.
The defense of your positions are amazingly similar in all of your posts. You ask for a source and then proceed to spin it or degrade it without any proof. You make wild allegations with nothing to back them up,(I've spoken with Floyd and he told me everything....yeah sure guy) and then keep repeating your sourceless "facts" while poking insults at those who disagree with you. Take a look at all your posts. It is the same story. You even go so far as to complain to the mods when people disagree with you. 
My advice to you, your obsession with Armstrong is boring and degrades your credibility to discuss your opinions as everyone knows it skews your thinking process. Not every opinion or post is about him or his past.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

I always liked this quote by David Walsh



> I suppose the bit that really frustrated me was the readiness of so many to accept Armstrong’s totally implausible explanations — to accept the fact that he felt he could character assassinate anyone who spoke against him,”


----------



## SicBith

Please see post #288 for Mr Walsh's opinion on this subject.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Please see post #288 for Mr Walsh's opinion on this subject.


David's opinion is clear. He says that Lance* did not realize* that making an enemy of Floyd was a mistake. He does not think Floyd tried to blackmail Lance

If there was, as you claim, an attempt by Floyd to blackmail Lance for a job how would he not realize there was a risk? If there was attempted blackmail why is there no evidence? Floyd is currently part of a $100 million lawsuit against lance, why has there been zero mention of blackmail in that case? If there was such a clear attempt at blackmail why did Armstrong's lawyers take down the emails days after the press announcement and never mention it again? 

Instead of hopelessly twisting David's words I suggest reading David's book. He spends several pages on Floyd. Zero mention of blackmail or extortion. He goes into detail the events that led him to come clean.


----------



## love4himies

While true there are no direct implications of black mail in the e-mails there is really no way of knowing the whole story unless we were privy to all the phone conversations and private conversations between all involved. I even believe we don't have all the e-mails that were involved.

However the e-mails between Floyd and Andrew do indicate _if you don't let my team ride, I'll tattle on what I know about Lance and others that ToC support_. Floyd does seem on one hand to be begging for a position, but if they don't get it they want all their money back (understandably) because _in no way can we support a tour that supports Lance_. But if you let us ride we will support your tour that supports Lance. Either Floyd supports or doesn't support the ToC for ethical reasons. Which is it?






> From: floyd landis
> 
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:23 AM
> 
> To: Andrew Messick; Eric at Bahi Foundation; Brent Kay
> 
> Subject: Opportunities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for facilitating the meeting with USADA, I met with them on Tuesday in LA but kept the other riders anonymous for the moment because I'm trying to negotiate amnesty for the guys that want to clear their conscience but I did admit to what I've done and offered to help make the testing better with my knowledge. They like to destroy athletes publicly and I think that is counter to their stated mission so it's going to be difficult to get. In the mean time Dr. Kay who owns Ouch has taken over as title sponsor of the Bahati Foundation team and has, months ago, bought a VIP tent for the last day of TOC and has strong interest in having the team in the TOC. Therefore I think it reasonable, in the event that you cannot add his team to the TOC, that you refund the 40K that Dr Kay has paid for the tent since, for one he has been snubbed from the race and moreover the 40K along with all of the other money that you leverage from small American teams ends up deposited directly into Lance Armstrongs account as an appearance fee.
> 
> *Dr Kay, the Bahati Foundation, and I have no desire to help finance that endeavor in the event that there is no place for the Ouch team in the race especially considering that there are going to be many racers, on those small American teams, who are paid less than 15K a year and have no medical insurance so that their teams can afford to pay their way into the TOC just to have it handed to Mr Armstrong.* This system has no value to the hard working, clean racing, aspiring American racers who are caught up in it, and my wealthy friends including Dr Kay and I have no desire to help to perpetuate this unidirectional flow of money. *I have several opportunities for raising money for your race but it doesn't make sense to me or my good friend Dr. Kay to put any more money or effort into helping you or cycling for that matter if there is no chance of adding one more team to the 2010 TOC. Please let me know if that is a possibility at this point before I go into any more detail.*



Then there is this e-mail. Why would Floyd include his version of Lance's insulting reply. That is a legal matter, not a matter to bring forward to the USADA. Why would Floyd include that to an e-mail to Andrew??? Except maybe to be a subtle "Look you have a jackass that your tour is supporting", or, Hey Lance, let me into the ToC or look what I'm going to do.



> From: floyd landis
> 
> Sent: Tue 5/11/2010 11:03 AM
> 
> To: Andrew Messick; Lance Armstrong, Dr. Brent Kay
> 
> Subject: USADA Meeting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sirs,
> 
> I'd like to personally invite you to my meeting with USADA tomorrow in Los Angeles. You've both been vocal with the press about you stance against performance enhancing drugs and USADA, being the agency empowered to deal with this problem, could use your support and any information that you can bring to the table. *I'm also going to invite Dr. Kay since he has been brought into this episode as the result of a threatening phone call from Mr. Armstrong last monday and wants to know the details. I thought this might also be a good time for you, Mr. Armstrong, to clarify your position on my alleged "alcoholism and psychological disorders" with Dr. Kay in person as he has indicated to me that your assertions were taken by him as an indictment against his medical practices.*
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know a time that would work for you and I'll have the meeting scheduled to fit in with your other obligations for the day or if Wed. works better let me know and I can try to delay it a day.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Floyd Landis.


And finally this e-mail from Floyd where he is letting Andrew know that hey, _ToC is saying they are anti-doping, but are not really_. 




> From: floyd landis
> 
> To: Brent Kay; S. Johnson; Steven Hess
> 
> Sent: Sat Apr 24 05:50:15 2010
> 
> Subject: Re: Opportunities
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank you for your response and I'll do my best to remember that you are new to cycling when trying to not feel insulted by your assertion that I am not capable of competing in an 800 mile race. I know that in the past the Tour of California has been adamant about preventing doping in it's race, the suspicious lack of an EPO test in
> 
> 2006 combined with the title sponsor who manufactures the drug notwithstanding
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/s...tml?ex=1329368400&en=9df932eee5268113&ei=5090 , I'm hopefull that you and those who make the decisions in that regard are sincere.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of arranging, within the next two weeks, another meeting with USADA in which I name the racers and staff who helped me to use performance enhancing drugs and avoid detection and am led to believe, by the stance that the Tour of California has taken, that you would be interested in joining us in that meeting so as to ascertain information about which teams to invite in the future.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken the liberty because I assume your interests are aligned, to copy Steve Johnson on this note and I'm hopefull that unlike in the past he'll also be willing to join and be forthcoming about what he knows about the history of doping in cycling as well.
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained in my first (recorded) conversation, I care deeply about the young people who aspire to become professional cyclists and hope that you also want them to be able to live that dream without having to make the choice about weather or not to use performance enhancing drugs without having to consider that those who control cycling are complicit in allowing dopings existance. Doping will probably never be gone for good but I'm sure you'll agree that the athletes in the future will have an easier decision if those, like yourself and Steve Johnson, in power in the sport will have made the morally and ethically correct choice at this very moment when there is a chance to reverse the trend and shed light on the magnitude of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know if you'd like to be part of the problem or part of the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Floyd Landis


His e-mails really stink of if you let me ride, I will keep quiet, but if you don't I won't. Can anyone honestly believe that Floyd would have gone to USADA had he gotten what he wanted? Does he think it's helpful to point out any negativities the ToC has. Almost seems like a bully to me.

As for Dr. Kay, he's really has rose coloured glasses on when it comes to Floyd. 

Andrew comes out being the most professional of all.


----------



## SicBith

Nope that's the part where Walsh says they didn't realize what Floyd was capable of. 
Until that point I'm guessing all the postal boys felt comfortable that none of them would break.
Are you privy to testimony in this case? If so, please show us that blackmail has not been entered into it. If you are not privy to this testimony your defense remains to be a fabrication.
I have addressed how emails work and how offering up this evidence freely when there are possible legal actions pending is not something lawyers like to do. While you don't choose to accept this fact the entire legal industry does.
If you have those pages please PM them to me. I don't wish to buy an entire book to read a couple pages on Floyd and I have no intent on wasting my time reading more about how Lance doped and intimidated people. That subject was established years ago.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> David's opinion is clear. He says that Lance* did not realize* that making an enemy of Floyd was a mistake. He does not think Floyd tried to blackmail Lance
> 
> If there was, as you claim, an attempt by Floyd to blackmail Lance for a job how would he not realize there was a risk? If there was attempted blackmail why is there no evidence? Floyd is currently part of a $100 million lawsuit against lance, why has there been zero mention of blackmail in that case? If there was such a clear attempt at blackmail why did Armstrong's lawyers take down the emails days after the press announcement and never mention it again?
> 
> Instead of hopelessly twisting David's words I suggest reading David's book. He spends several pages on Floyd. Zero mention of blackmail or extortion. He goes into detail the events that led him to come clean.


I think at that time Lance thought he was infallible. That nobody could take him down, however, I don't think Lance wanted to take on Floyd through the courts, nor did Lance want the accusatory e-mails of what Floyd knew about Lance's doping up for everybody to read. Also, posting those e-mails was totally unprofessional.

You are right about one thing, the e-mails do not show a clear attempt at blackmail, not one that would pass in a court of law anyways (thank goodness, because you know how I love the "prove your case beyond reasonable doubt").


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> While true there are no direct implications of black mail in the e-mails there is really no way of knowing the whole story unless we were privy to all the phone conversations and private conversations between all involved. I even believe we don't have all the e-mails that were involved.
> 
> However the e-mails between Floyd and Andrew do indicate _if you don't let my team ride, I'll tattle on what I know about Lance and others that ToC support_. Floyd does seem on one hand to be begging for a position, but if they don't get it they want all their money back (understandably) because _in no way can we support a tour that supports Lance_. But if you let us ride we will support your tour that supports Lance. Either Floyd supports or doesn't support the ToC for ethical reasons. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is this e-mail. Why would Floyd include his version of Lance's insulting reply. That is a legal matter, not a matter to bring forward to the USADA. Why would Floyd include that to an e-mail to Andrew??? Except maybe to be a subtle "Look you have a jackass that your tour is supporting", or, Hey Lance, let me into the ToC or look what I'm going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> And finally this e-mail from Floyd where he is letting Andrew know that hey, _ToC is saying they are anti-doping, but are not really_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His e-mails really stink of if you let me ride, I will keep quiet, but if you don't I won't. Can anyone honestly believe that Floyd would have gone to USADA had he gotten what he wanted? Does he think it's helpful to point out any negativities the ToC has. Almost seems like a bully to me.
> 
> As for Dr. Kay, he's really has rose coloured glasses on when it comes to Floyd.
> 
> Andrew comes out being the most professional of all.


Floyd had *already met* with USADA twice and exchanged multiple emails with them detailing his experience with doping. There is nothing in the emails that even allude to "if you let me ride, I will keep quiet". It was far too late for that, *Floyd had already talked*. 

Agree with you on Dr. Kay. The guy comes off as a clueless fanboy. 

There is nothing to support the claim of blackmail, but there is plenty to support that a series of events led to Landis coming clean. Walsh talks about them in his book. Johan turning down his job request, getting found guilty of hacking the LNDD lab, not getting to ride for Rock Racing, getting turned down by multiple Pro Tour teams, being told by the ASO he would never be allowed to race the Tour again, Not getting his team into the ToC (Despite paying $40K), being forced to ride tiny races in the US while Lance flies around in his jet, His best friend committing suicide, sliding into depression, getting divorced. A long, downward, spiral.......but no evidence of blackmail


----------



## SicBith

While I'm not sure when he met with USADA, or which emails were shared, you told us Floyd met USADA after he had been turned down by Radio Shack. There is motive and intent, and his past actions illegal hacking of the lab, attempted Blackmail of Lemond, defrauding people of money to defend his doping case all speak to precedence. If you have motive, intent, and presednece going against you in a trial you better have a really good defense attorney. (Or politians in your pocket)


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Floyd had *already met* with USADA twice and exchanged multiple emails with them detailing his experience with doping. There is nothing in the emails that even allude to "if you let me ride, I will keep quiet". It was far too late for that, *Floyd had already talked*.
> 
> Agree with you on Dr. Kay. The guy comes off as a clueless fanboy.
> 
> There is nothing to support the claim of blackmail, but there is plenty to support that a series of events led to Landis coming clean. Walsh talks about them in his book. Johan turning down his job request, getting found guilty of hacking the LNDD lab, not getting to ride for Rock Racing, getting turned down by multiple Pro Tour teams, being told by the ASO he would never be allowed to race the Tour again, Not getting his team into the ToC (Despite paying $40K), being forced to ride tiny races in the US while Lance flies around in his jet, His best friend committing suicide, sliding into depression, getting divorced. A long, downward, spiral.......but no evidence of blackmail


Yes, he talked to the USADA, but what did he say? Anything relevant? Or was he in the negotiating process? 

There is still no plausible explanation for the negative things about the ToC he put in his e-mail to Andrew except to remind Andrew of what he knew. *What's the relevance to those references to trying to persuade to be invited to the ToC?*


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Yes, he talked to the USADA, but what did he say? Anything relevant? Or was he in the negotiating process?
> 
> There is still no plausible explanation for the negative things about the ToC he put in his e-mail to Andrew except to remind Andrew of what he knew. *What's the relevance to those references to trying to persuade to be invited to the ToC?*


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...l-accussing-lance-armstrong-article-1.1132102



> “I can share with you that a USADA representative met with an individual close to Mr. Landis… weeks before the April 30 email was sent and in that meeting USADA received much of the same information from this intermediary that was subsequently contained in the email,”


Here is the text of the email

http://wheelmenthebook.com/docs/Original-Floyd-Landis-Emails-to-Cycling-Officials.PDF

If you scroll down you will also see an email from Landis to Lance regarding Armstrong calling Landis' team and asking about their finances and possible sponsorship and landis' telling him to back off. That is some funny stuff. Hardly a guy looking for a payoff.

If you keep scrolling down you will see Landis' very detailed email to Lance. Funny how Lance left that one out of his smear attempt 

Messick doesn't see it as blackmail, in fact he says clearly why Floyd came forward



> Messick also alleged that Landis had contacted him in early April. "He told me, 'I've been living a lie. I can't sleep at night. I have to ease my burden, so I've got to tell the truth about what I've done.'


Messick was hardly helpful



> "I told him two things," Messick continued. "One, none of this is new. If you hang around cycling long enough, you hear things about riders and what they've done. And two, what makes you think anyone would believe you?"


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...l-accussing-lance-armstrong-article-1.1132102
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the text of the email
> 
> http://wheelmenthebook.com/docs/Original-Floyd-Landis-Emails-to-Cycling-Officials.PDF
> 
> If you scroll down you will also see an email from Landis to Lance regarding Armstrong calling Landis' team and asking about their finances and possible sponsorship and landis' telling him to back off. That is some funny stuff. Hardly a guy looking for a payoff.
> 
> If you keep scrolling down you will see Landis' very detailed email to Lance. Funny how Lance left that one out of his smear attempt


I haven't read all the e-mails, but they still look like a desperate guy that is bitter that Lance is enjoying his wealth and Floyd is not. I always question the motives of those who publicly tattle on others as I see it as a way to get a type of payback. He has too many snide remarks in his e-mails to make me believe that his intentions/motives are anything but payback.


----------



## den bakker

was interesting to hear a few opinions from outside cycling on his participation. 
"what a [email protected]" was among the more friendly phrases.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> David's opinion is clear. He says that Lance* did not realize* that making an enemy of Floyd was a mistake. He does not think Floyd tried to blackmail Lance


So what was Landis bluffing about?

If Landis was a bomb, what was the potential explosion?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> I haven't read all the e-mails, but they still look like a desperate guy that is bitter that Lance is enjoying his wealth and Floyd is not. I always question the motives of those who publicly tattle on others as I see it as a way to get a type of payback. He has too many snide remarks in his e-mails to make me believe that his intentions/motives are anything but payback.


I am sure that is an element of it. In fact in his emails and other communication he makes that clear. He also makes it clear to Messick that it is not just Lance riding that pisses him off but also Vdv, Dave Z, Vaughters. Even Pereiro, who was awarded Landis' Tour victory even though he told Landis' he did a transfusion. He was pissed at USA cycling who always defended Lance but left landis' out in the cold. 

Revenge was certainly one of the motivators........but revenge is not Blackmail. There is zero evidence that Floyd ever threatened to expose the truth unless he was paid. None.


----------



## love4himies

love4himies said:


> Yes, he talked to the USADA, but what did he say? Anything relevant? Or was he in the negotiating process?
> 
> There is still no plausible explanation for the negative things about the ToC he put in his e-mail to Andrew except to remind Andrew of what he knew. *What's the relevance to those references to trying to persuade to be invited to the ToC?*





Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am sure that is an element of it. In fact in his emails and other communication he makes that clear. He also makes it clear to Messick that it is not just Lance riding that pisses him off but also Vdv, Dave Z, Vaughters. Even Pereiro, who was awarded Landis' Tour victory even though he told Landis' he did a transfusion. He was pissed at USA cycling who always defended Lance but left landis' out in the cold.
> 
> Revenge was certainly one of the motivators........but revenge is not Blackmail. There is zero evidence that Floyd ever threatened to expose the truth unless he was paid. None.


So I ask again, what's the relevance of including the remarks about ToC's lack of doping checks and asking for his team to be invited to the ToC?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> So I ask again, what's the relevance of including the remarks about ToC's lack of doping checks and asking for his team to be invited to the ToC?



Landis asked Messick to be part of the solution, even invited him to meet with USADA, and was blow off. 



> Messick also alleged that Landis had contacted him in early April. "He told me, 'I've been living a lie. I can't sleep at night. I have to ease my burden, so I've got to tell the truth about what I've done.'


And Messick blew him off. Said people would not believe him



> "I told him two things," Messick continued. "One, none of this is new. If you hang around cycling long enough, you hear things about riders and what they've done. And two, what makes you think anyone would believe you?"


Given Messick's tepid response not surprised Floyd points out ToC has no drug testing. They seemed to have zero interest in changing the sport

It appears Dr. Kay spent $40k on VIP booth expecting that it would help them get in. Not unusual as ToC has been "Pay to play" in the past. It didn't work and he wants his money back. He also rambles on about how strong their team is.

it is confusing but it doesn't seem to have any connection to the claim Floyd tried to Blackmail Lance as all of those emails came after Landis had already started talking to USADA


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Landis asked Messick to be part of the solution, even invited him to meet with USADA, and was blow off.
> 
> 
> 
> And Messick blew him off. Said people would not believe him
> 
> 
> 
> Given Messick's tepid response not surprised Floyd points out ToC has no drug testing. They seemed to have zero interest in changing the sport
> 
> It appears Dr. Kay spent $40k on VIP booth expecting that it would help them get in. Not unusual as ToC has been "Pay to play" in the past. It didn't work and he wants his money back. He also rambles on about how strong their team is.
> 
> it is confusing but it doesn't seem to have any connection to the claim Floyd tried to Blackmail Lance as all of those emails came after Landis had already started talking to USADA


If I was the recipient of Floyd's e-mail I would take it as a threat. Andrew's reply was so very tactful, wonder if it was sent to the legal dept before he replied.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> If I was the recipient of Floyd's e-mail I would take it as a threat. Andrew's reply was so very tactful, wonder if it was sent to the legal dept before he replied.


Landis' original commutation with him was not that way



> I've been living a lie. I can't sleep at night. I have to ease my burden, so I've got to tell the truth about what I've done.'


When Messick started blowing Landis' off, telling him nobody would believe him, etc. his tone changed. Understandable, Messick clearly was not part of the solution. He had no interest in cleaning up the sport, he just wanted to grow his event by any means possible.

If you want to know more I suggest reading "Wheelmen". It has many pages on how Floyd came to tell the truth. There is zero evidence of blackmail.

In his first meeting with Messick Landis brought a tape recorder because he did not want to be misunderstood. He wanted his intentions to be clear and did not want to be accused of blackmail. Messick is on tape saying over and over "Yeah, but who is going to believe you?"

Once Lance found out via Messick Lance calls Floyd's team and offers them money to fire him.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance calls Floyd's team and offers them money to fire him.


Do we have a source for this?


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> I haven't read all the e-mails, but they still look like a desperate guy that is bitter that Lance is enjoying his wealth and Floyd is not. I always question the motives of those who publicly tattle on others as I see it as a way to get a type of payback. He has too many snide remarks in his e-mails to make me believe that his intentions/motives are anything but payback.


I love Lance with all my heart and soul, he is an All American hero and the patron of the peloton. Floyd's tattling ruined Lance's mythological status and for that I will never forgive him. Lance paved Floyd's way in the sport and this is how he thanks Lance?

I used to love reading Jenkins, Reilly and Austin Murphy's great stories about Lance's exploits.. Although Murphy too turned out to be a traitor.

Anyway, keep defending Lance! I'm happy that other people love him as much as I do! 

Thanks,

Jack Hammer


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Do we have a source for this?


If you took time to actually read what I wrote you would see that the source is "Wheelmen". It is one of the better sourced books on the subject. At the end of the book he lists his sources for each claim. For this one he lists 

Bahati team management
Landis
Emails between Armstrong and Arnie Baker about the conversation

Interest book. Goes into long detail about how Floyd came to tell the truth. Very well sourced. Zero evidence of Floyd attempting to blackmail Lance.


----------



## love4himies

So if we are taking Floyd's emails at face value, as in exactly what was put in writing with no undertones taken into consideration, would you think had Lance written those exact same words that there was no intentions of blackmail?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> So if we are taking Floyd's emails at face value, as in exactly what was put in writing with no undertones taken into consideration, would you think had Lance written those exact same words that there was no intentions of blackmail?


Which emails are you referring to? All of those emails came *after* Landis had met with USADA. Months after he had told many people the truth.

If Landis is trying to blackmail Lance how does he do this if USADA already has the info?


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Which emails are you referring to? All of those emails came *after* Landis had met with USADA. Months after he had told many people the truth.
> 
> If Landis is trying to blackmail Lance how does he do this if USADA already has the info?


The ones between Landis and Andrew.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> The ones between Landis and Andrew.


All of those emails come after Landis, and his lawyers, came clean to USADA. Landis had talked on the phone with Tygart in early April. Paul Scott, one of Landis' expert witnesses had, at Landis' request, already detailed Landis' doping to USADA's Science director. USADA lawyers and investigators then met with Landis' reps. Landis then met in person with Tygart on April 20th. 

What was Landis trying to blackmail with if he had already come clean?


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> All of those emails come after Landis, and his lawyers, came clean to USADA. Landis had talked on the phone with Tygart in early April. Paul Scott, one of Landis' expert witnesses had, at Landis' request, already detailed Landis' doping to USADA's Science director. USADA lawyers and investigators then met with Landis' reps. Landis then met in person with Tygart on April 20th.
> 
> What was Landis trying to blackmail with if he had already come clean?


See, I don't think Landis did tell USADA everything before the e-mails.

Apr 22:



> Hey Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for facilitating the meeting with USADA, I met with them on Tuesday in LA but kept the other riders anonymous for the moment because I'm trying to negotiate amnesty for the guys that want to clear their conscience but I did admit to what I've done and offered to help make the testing better with my knowledge.


In the same e-mail:



> I have several opportunities for raising money for your race but it doesn't make sense to me or my good friend Dr. Kay to put any more money or effort into helping you or cycling for that matter if there is no chance of adding one more team to the 2010 TOC. Please let me know if that is a possibility at this point before I go into any more detail.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> See, I don't think Landis did tell USADA everything before the e-mails.
> 
> Apr 22:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same e-mail:


Nope, He had. 

Floyd also instructed Paul Scott, a scientist who worked on his case, to reach out to USADA's scientists. He did. He gave them a lot of detail on doping on USPS. On April 11th Daniel Eichner flew where Scott lived and met with him the following morning. 

Reaching out to Messick and Johnson was a test......they both failed terribly


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Which emails are you referring to? All of those emails came *after* Landis had met with USADA. Months after he had told many people the truth.


Aside from Landis and USADA, who knew this? 

Did Armstrong know?


----------



## SicBith

H


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Landis' original commutation with him was not that way
> 
> 
> 
> When Messick started blowing Landis' off, telling him nobody would believe him, etc. his tone changed. Understandable, Messick clearly was not part of the solution. He had no interest in cleaning up the sport, he just wanted to grow his event by any means possible.
> 
> If you want to know more I suggest reading "Wheelmen". It has many pages on how Floyd came to tell the truth. There is zero evidence of blackmail.
> 
> In his first meeting with Messick Landis brought a tape recorder because he did not want to be misunderstood. He wanted his intentions to be clear and did not want to be accused of blackmail. Messick is on tape saying over and over "Yeah, but who is going to believe you?"
> 
> Once Lance found out via Messick Lance calls Floyd's team and offers them money to fire him.


Would you please give us some reference page# from the book?


----------



## SicBith

Jackhammer said:


> I love Lance with all my heart and soul, he is an All American hero and the patron of the peloton. Floyd's tattling ruined Lance's mythological status and for that I will never forgive him. Lance paved Floyd's way in the sport and this is how he thanks Lance?
> 
> I used to love reading Jenkins, Reilly and Austin Murphy's great stories about Lance's exploits.. Although Murphy too turned out to be a traitor.
> 
> Anyway, keep defending Lance! I'm happy that other people love him as much as I do!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jack Hammer


Nice hack....troll


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> All of those emails come after Landis, and his lawyers, came clean to USADA. Landis had talked on the phone with Tygart in early April. Paul Scott, one of Landis' expert witnesses had, at Landis' request, already detailed Landis' doping to USADA's Science director. USADA lawyers and investigators then met with Landis' reps. Landis then met in person with Tygart on April 20th.
> 
> What was Landis trying to blackmail with if he had already come clean?


Some of these emails were written after a Radio Shack said not, and before Landis had come clean to USADA.
Source for you Paul Scott claim, and source for this mysterious phone call to tygart please. If this is in wheelman does us a favor and give us the page number please.


----------



## love4himies

SicBith said:


> Nice hack....troll


He's a good guy. Always has a nice Belgian beer for me after his rides.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you took time to actually read what I wrote you would see that the source is "Wheelmen". It is one of the better sourced books on the subject. At the end of the book he lists his sources for each claim. For this one he lists
> 
> Bahati team management
> Landis
> Emails between Armstrong and Arnie Baker about the conversation
> 
> Interest book. Goes into long detail about how Floyd came to tell the truth. Very well sourced. Zero evidence of Floyd attempting to blackmail Lance.


Just a heads up. A valid source allows the reader the ability to find and look at its orgin. Unless the book provides exactly which emails it is sourcing and how to find them, it is worthless.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Just a heads up. A valid source allows the reader the ability to find and look at its orgin. Unless the book provides exactly which emails it is sourcing and how to find them, it is worthless.


You first dude 

You have invented some elaborate conspiracy theories with zero sources to support your claim that Landis tried to blackmail Lance. 

There are plenty of books on the subject. Both Walsh and Reed spend many pages on Landis coming clean in their books. They completely discount the nonsense about blackmail. You should read both books then maybe you might finally stop making all of these silly claims


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope, He had.
> 
> Floyd also instructed Paul Scott, a scientist who worked on his case, to reach out to USADA's scientists. He did. He gave them a lot of detail on doping on USPS. On April 11th Daniel Eichner flew where Scott lived and met with him the following morning.
> 
> Reaching out to Messick and Johnson was a test......they both failed terribly


Link that proves Landis told them all?

Was a test for what?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You first dude
> 
> You have invented some elaborate conspiracy theories with zero sources to support your claim that Landis tried to blackmail Lance.
> 
> There are plenty of books on the subject. Both Walsh and Reed spend many pages on Landis coming clean in their books. They completely discount the nonsense about blackmail. You should read both books then maybe you might finally stop making all of these silly claims


Post #288. Walsh outlines in his own spoken words Floyd's intentions. 
I'm still waiting for you to to produce anything we can actually use to form an opinion besides the fanboy support of Floyd. I will very much like to see in the testimony of the whistle blower suit, where it mentions there was no blackmail attempt by Floyd. You have told us you know for a fact this is true if so please share this silly claim with us.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Link that proves Landis told them all?
> 
> Was a test for what?


http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Scott,+Paul+Affidavit.pdf

Paul Scott's affidavit

I have written this several times, Floyd wanted to see what Johnson and Messick would do. Were they part of the problem or part of the solution? To Messick's credit he did call Tygart.......but he also called Johnson, who immediately called Armstrong's team. This is when Lance invented the extortion angle and tried to pay Bahati to dump Landis


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Post #288. Walsh outlines in his own spoken words Floyd's intentions.
> I'm still waiting for you to to produce anything we can actually use to form an opinion besides the fanboy support of Floyd. I will very much like to see in the testimony of the whistle blower suit, where it mentions there was no blackmail attempt by Floyd. You have told us you know for a fact this is true if so please share this silly claim with us.


It is pretty clear you have no intention of backing up your invented claims. 

Walsh wrote a book that spends many pages detailing how and why Landis came clean. I will give you a hint, Blackmail was not the reason :thumbsup:

I suggest you read it then perhaps you might stop with this nonsense.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is pretty clear you have no intention of backing up your invented claims.
> 
> Walsh wrote a book that spends many pages detailing how and why Landis came clean. I will give you a hint, Blackmail was not the reason :thumbsup:
> 
> I suggest you read it then perhaps you might stop with this nonsense.


We've been over this, the source in post#288 backs up my claim. It is clear though you are having a hard time understanding what Walsh is saying. 
Here is another possible angle on Floyd. While I don't have any concrete evidence to back it up yet, it rings true to me.
Floyd is broke, he needs cash. The attempt at blackmailing radio shack didn't play out, so in considering his options was he ever told by legal counsel about the possible damage settlements in whistle blower law suits? Yet another financial incentive to come clean "for the children"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> We've been over this, the source in post#288 backs up my claim. It is clear though you are having a hard time understanding what Walsh is saying.
> Here is another possible angle on Floyd. While *I don't have any concrete evidence to back it up* yet, it rings true to me.
> Floyd is broke, he needs cash. The attempt at blackmailing radio shack didn't play out, so in considering his options was he ever told by legal counsel about the possible damage settlements in whistle blower law suits? Yet another financial incentive to come clean "for the children"


Finally we agree, You have nothing. Nada. Good that you have finally come to your senses. 

Twisting Walsh's quote does nothing to support your case.......unless you think he is lying in his book?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Finally we agree, You have nothing. Nada. Good that you have finally come to your senses.
> 
> Twisting Walsh's quote does nothing to support your case.......unless you think he is lying in his book?


Wow...now your quoting me out of context as well? Do you work for FOX News? It seems you have pretty much thrown up your hands and said jeez DF.. You have nothing to prove Floyd did not attempt to blackmail Radio Shack. I have Walsh alluding to it, Floyd's motive is certainly clear and it has been proven he has zero issues with breaking a law or two if it benefits him. 
All you have is some compromised emails which seem to be used in vain to troll up Radio Shack into an exchange which they are smart enough to not engage in.
I would stick with Armstrong if I were you, cause I don't think you understand what Floyd is capable of.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Finally we agree, You have nothing. Nada. Good that you have finally come to your senses.
> 
> Twisting Walsh's quote does nothing to support your case.......unless you think he is lying in his book?


She has just as much as you do. I too, after reading those emails, think Floyd is not doing this for the children. A person who feels guilty about something doesn't keep doing it and then deny doing it for years after they get caught. That's somebody who does what they have to do to succeed, even if it's unethical. At least we can give Lance some credit for being honest about not feeling guilty about doping.

I still think he was blackmailing Andrew to get a spot in the ToC so he could leave cycling with some dignity.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Wow...now your quoting me out of context as well? Do you work for FOX News? It seems you have pretty much thrown up your hands and said jeez DF.. You have nothing to prove Floyd did not attempt to blackmail Radio Shack. I have Walsh alluding to it, Floyd's motive is certainly clear and it has been proven he has zero issues with breaking a law or two if it benefits him.
> All you have is some compromised emails which seem to be used in vain to troll up Radio Shack into an exchange which they are smart enough to not engage in.
> I would stick with Armstrong if I were you, cause I don't think you understand what Floyd is capable of.


Look, we get it. You are embarrassed. You made an unsupportable claim, found no evidence to support it, and instead of admitting you are wrong you keep digging the hole. If you read Walsh's book you will see that your attempt to twist his words is nonsense. 

I have given you links, emails, affidavits and very well sources books that show your claim is nonsense. Take some time to read them, it might stop you from further embarrassment.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> She has just as much as you do. I too, after reading those emails, think Floyd is not doing this for the children. A person who feels guilty about something doesn't keep doing it and then deny doing it for years after they get caught. That's somebody who does what they have to do to succeed, even if it's unethical. At least we can give Lance some credit for being honest about not feeling guilty about doping.
> 
> I still think he was blackmailing Andrew to get a spot in the ToC so he could leave cycling with some dignity.


Floyd had many motives. Changing the sport was one, revenge against many in the sport was also part of it........but there is zero evidence to support the claim of blackmail. 

If he was blackmailing Messick why did he come clean to Vaughters 6 months prior? Why did he come clean to Tiger Williams at the same time and detail his plan and the reasons behind it? Do you think Tiger is lying? If he was blackmailing Messick why have Paul Scott reach out to USADA and tell them everything? Messick participated in the smear of Floyd but he never said there was any attempt at blackmail, in fact he gave the reasons for Floyd coming to him as 



> "He told me, 'I've been living a lie. I can't sleep at night. I have to ease my burden, so I've got to tell the truth about what I've done.'


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Floyd had many motives. Changing the sport was one, revenge against many in the sport was also part of it........but there is zero evidence to support the claim of blackmail.
> 
> If he was blackmailing Messick why did he come clean to Vaughters 6 months prior? Why did he come clean to Tiger Williams at the same time and detail his plan and the reasons behind it? Do you think Tiger is lying? If he was blackmailing Messick why have Paul Scott reach out to USADA and tell them everything? Messick participated in the smear of Floyd but he never said there was any attempt at blackmail, in fact he gave the reasons for Floyd coming to him as


People say one thing in public, but believe/know differently. This is to prevent a lawsuit. He may have come clean to Vaughters (why was that? To get a job on his team??).

IMHO Floyd did what was what he thought was going to benefit himself and it didn't work out. Blackmail is a type of revenge is it not? You give me what I want or I'll get my revenge by ...

To change the sport, ha. He only wanted the change the sport because he got caught as it was his publicity stunt. If he really hated doping, he would not have lied for years, admitted the truth, then tried to advocate for clean sport. I don't judge any one person who doped during that time, but I do judge people by what they do after they are caught or better what they do when they haven't been caught. I think he lost sleep because he didn't like what was happening in his life.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> People say one thing in public, but believe/know differently. This is to prevent a lawsuit. He may have come clean to Vaughters (why was that? To get a job on his team??).
> 
> IMHO Floyd did what was what he thought was going to benefit himself and it didn't work out. Blackmail is a type of revenge is it not? You give me what I want or I'll get my revenge by ...


The problem is there is zero evidence to support it and Floyd had zero leverage to extract anything from Messick as he had already started the process of coming clean. 

I doubt Messick would have any issues saying that Floyd tried to blackmail him if this was actually the case. He had no problems saying Floyd was mentally unstable.

I suggest reading Wheelmen. Reed spends many pages documenting the long process that led to Floyd coming clean. Each claim is well sourced. Zero mention of blackmail


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The problem is there is zero evidence to support it and Floyd had zero leverage to extract anything from Messick as he had already started the process of coming clean.
> 
> I doubt Messick would have any issues saying that Floyd tried to blackmail him if this was actually the case. He had no problems saying Floyd was mentally unstable.
> 
> I suggest reading Wheelmen. Reed spends many pages documenting the long process that led to Floyd coming clean. Each claim is well sourced. Zero mention of blackmail


Ordered the book yesterday as a matter of fact. I'm curious now to read it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Ordered the book yesterday as a matter of fact. I'm curious now to read it.


It is a great book. Reed got to listen to the tape Floyd made of his meeting with Messick. The one where he said 



> "Look. I'm going to tell you some things and I'm going to record it because I'm going to be accused of extortion. That is not what this is."


Knowing that his meeting with Floyd was taped is likely what stopped Messick from jumping on the blackmail bandwagon, but he had no problem with the "Dude is nuts" stuff


----------



## David Loving

Usually when they say, "that's not what this is," that IS what this is.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Usually when they say, "that's not what this is," that IS what this is.


Hmmm, to bring this thread back on track. 



> “This really isn’t about me,” says Lance Armstrong. “This is about fighting cancer.


David might have a point. Lots of reporters and news articles, almost nothing about cancer. It was all about Armstrong's redemption campaign


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Look, we get it. You are embarrassed. You made an unsupportable claim, found no evidence to support it, and instead of admitting you are wrong you keep digging the hole. If you read Walsh's book you will see that your attempt to twist his words is nonsense.
> 
> I have given you links, emails, affidavits and very well sources books that show your claim is nonsense. Take some time to read them, it might stop you from further embarrassment.


Honestly, it looks like Landis was desperate and out to hurt others. We don't have evidence of blackmail on its face, but the writing was on the wall. Landis was a bomb ready to explode. 

Writing him a check would have calmed him. But that didn't happen. The bomb went off.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Local Hero said:


> Honestly, it looks like Landis was desperate and out to hurt others. We don't have evidence of blackmail on its face, but the writing was on the wall. Landis was a bomb ready to explode.
> 
> Writing him a check would have calmed him. But that didn't happen. The bomb went off.


Speaking of Landis: Ever wonder how and why he could get busted for such a detectable banned substance as synthetic testosterone? I mean how in the world could he take that and not expect to be caught?


----------



## Local Hero

I don't remember the exact situation. Maybe he left his patch on too long or something.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Look, we get it. You are embarrassed. You made an unsupportable claim, found no evidence to support it, and instead of admitting you are wrong you keep digging the hole. If you read Walsh's book you will see that your attempt to twist his words is nonsense.
> 
> I have given you links, emails, affidavits and very well sources books that show your claim is nonsense. Take some time to read them, it might stop you from further embarrassment.


If I'm embarrassed, it isn't for me...you have given nada except some compromised emails and you keep asking me to read a book. Not once have you given us a valid source from said book. You did list a reference to a source in a book, (bahati emails) which no one can find to use in forming an opinion. You say you have testimony from the whistle blower case which is yet to be seen here, you have given a few books but not Given any sources from them.
When you are backed up against the wall you just start swinging wildly hoping to land a punch, but in this case you are just swing at air and getting tired.
I believe my argument concerning this is supported enough for many people here. You may not, but continuing to bully your opinion on me is entertainment for many....according to a few notifications I have received.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> If I'm embarrassed, it isn't for me...you have given nada except some compromised emails and you keep asking me to read a book. Not once have you given us a valid source from said book. You did list a reference to a source in a book, (bahati emails) which no one can find to use in forming an opinion. You say you have testimony from the whistle blower case which is yet to be seen here, you have given a few books but not Given any sources from them.
> When you are backed up against the wall you just start swinging wildly hoping to land a punch, but in this case you are just swing at air and getting tired.
> I believe my argument concerning this is supported enough for many people here. You may not, but continuing to bully your opinion on me is entertainment for many....according to a few notifications I have received.


Keep digging that hole


----------



## Alaska Mike

GlobalGuy said:


> Speaking of Landis: Ever wonder how and why he could get busted for such a detectable banned substance as synthetic testosterone? I mean how in the world could he take that and not expect to be caught?


He still claims he was doped to the gills for that Tour, but wasn't taking testosterone at that time. My guess it was in the bag he uploaded before the stage. He didn't have the most careful doping doctor, so the timing was likely off.

Ask Tommy D why someone would take synthetic testosterone.

Floyd was in a very dark place at the time he came clean, but I doubt money would have made him shut up. He did what he was told to and fought his suspension, even though anyone with half a brain realized no top-tier team would ever touch him. He was done in the sport, because he got popped at the apex. He didn't seem to realize it, and for a while expected that he would get to ride for a ProTour team again.

I don't think Floyd was motivated by money, but rather by revenge. He burned through a lot of cash doing what he was supposed to and defending Omerta, so getting some cash back through the whistleblower case is only fair in his eyes. He wants to see it all burn.

I'd personally love to take a ride with Floyd and not talk about any of this crap. Just ride bikes and talk bike stuff. He'd crush me, but it would be fun.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Keep digging that hole


Is that your head down there?


----------



## Local Hero

If this had happened then Armstrong would still have his titles... Armstrong Says Bruyneel to Join New Team, Landis a Possibility - Bloomberg


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> If this had happened then Armstrong would still have his titles... Armstrong Says Bruyneel to Join New Team, Landis a Possibility - Bloomberg


And this thread comes full circle. Slow day at the office?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

deviousalex said:


> And this thread comes full circle. Slow day at the office?


Yeah, someone must be bored. 

Luckily Lance cleared this up for us. Last week he said it was 100% Jeff Novitzky, not Floyd, who brought him down.


----------



## Jackhammer

*Wizard of Poppycock*



Local Hero said:


> If this had happened then Armstrong would still have his titles... Armstrong Says Bruyneel to Join New Team, Landis a Possibility - Bloomberg



Those titles have as much meaning as the Cowardly Lion's Certificate of Courage!

Although I too love Lance.....


----------



## mapeiboy

jfaas said:


> I agree, they took him out of races and wiped his name from the books. Leave him alone.


They wiped his name from 7 tour wins . My question is why have they not found a worthy ride to take each of these 7 titles . The reason is non of the rides were clean and they know that .


----------



## mapeiboy

thighmaster said:


> In Europe the whole doping thing is not like it is here. They all know and will only show some discomfort when someone is caught, but like all the one who have, they remain heros. Think pantani, Johan museuw, boonen, miilar--just as long as they don't throw anyone under the bus.


+1 . Its too funny we , in North America , talk about doping as it only happened in Europe . Let's talk about the sports here , NFL . NBA , NBL . They are all clean , right .


----------



## mapeiboy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Fixie riding hipsters take EPO?
> 
> I must have missed the part in the Reasoned Decision about Lance blowing through stop signs


Since general public associates cycling with doping because of LA . Why are you still in this sport .


----------



## mapeiboy

spade2you said:


> Hush, Armstrong apologist!!!
> 
> Anyone wondering if simply mentioning Armstrong is a straight up publicity stunt? Tons of article reads and threads started whenever Armstrong is mentioned.


Not Armstrong apologist . LA is not the first to ever dope to win the tour . I just don't understand why so much hate throw at him . If UCI wants to show the public they really want to have a clean tour . Please give his 7 titles to those riders that were clean during those years . I am still waiting for the announcement .


----------



## mapeiboy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nonsense. People are allowed to voice their opinion of Lance using their event, one he is banned from, to promote himself.
> 
> As long as Lance deploys the cancer shield nobody is allowed to question his actions.  Does this have limits or is he allowed to do anything without being questioned as long as he mentions the C word?


Is he banned from riding the public road in France ? He is not riding in the Tour so what is the problem here . Just because the charity is using the same route as the tour the day before dose not makes part of the tour . He was ask to participate in this charity ride to raise money for cancer . Cookson should go after the event organizer not Lance in this case .


----------



## mapeiboy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am sure the French will give him a very warm welcome :thumbsup:


As if their heros are all clean . Jacques Anguetil ( 5 times tour winner ) : Everyone in cycling dopes themselves and those who claim they don't are liars .


----------



## love4himies

mapeiboy said:


> +1 . Its too funny we , in North America , talk about doping as it only happened in Europe . Let's talk about the sports here , NFL . NBA , NBL . They are all clean , right .


You forgot the NHL.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mapeiboy said:


> Since general public associates cycling with doping because of LA . Why are you still in this sport .


Why would I leave the sport because Lance is a douche? 

For most of us the sport is more then just one rider


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mapeiboy said:


> Everyone in cycling dopes themselves and those who claim they don't are liars .


Everyone in cycling does not dope. 

If it helps you justify Armstrong's actions then feel free to push that nonsense but don't expect everyone to agree with you


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mapeiboy said:


> +1 . Its too funny we , in North America , talk about doping as it only happened in Europe . Let's talk about the sports here , NFL . NBA , NBL . They are all clean , right .


This is a cycling forum. We talk about bike racing here. Most of us don't care about doping in cricket etc.


----------

