# Landis probe is 'significant'



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

At least he has that going for him.


----------



## Pancho's Balls (Aug 15, 2009)

Why do you hate masking-agent users?


----------



## bike_guy (Mar 26, 2002)

Does that mean he's above average?


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

In before the move.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

linky?


----------



## Hollywood (Jan 16, 2003)

Creakyknees said:


> slinky?


fixed.


----------



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> linky?


*Bike Radar*


----------



## KWL (Jan 31, 2005)

Hollywood said:


> fixed.


.....


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

What else are they going to say? I don't think "This inquiry is extremely unlikely to result in any concrete evidence that would allow for a doping prosecution. But we need to look like we're doing something, and this seemed like an excellent opportunity."


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

bmxhacksaw said:


> At least he has that going for him.


That website design is almost an exact copy of Cyclingnews.

That bothers me, why is that?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

terry b said:


> That bothers me, why is that?


Probably because we don't need TWO almost unusable cycling news sites. One is enough.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Interpol getting involved. Does that mean Inspector Clouseau is on the case now?


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Probed?


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Probably because we don't need TWO almost unusable cycling news sites. One is enough.


I knew I could count on you. Worst redesign evar.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

It's better than having an "insignificant probe".


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

All of the governing bodies will have their investigations just to show they looked into the allegations. LA is too big to bring down. The Livestrong foundation will insulate him from any prosecution. There are too many people who look up to LA for Hope with their fight. Hope is the most powerful treatment we have for cancer right now.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

SicBith said:


> There are too many people who look up to LA for Hope with their fight. Hope is the most powerful treatment we have for cancer right now.


So maybe they need to take him down off of that pedestal and stop treating him as the Second Coming.
Just because someone is a big philanthropist should not exempt them from proper rigorous examination.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

It's bigger than just one guy getting knocked off his pedestal. He's going to retire after the Tour. You won't need to worry about him anymore. I don't believe anyone in the top four of the tour does not performance enhance on some level especially from 99 - 05. Let those who choose to treat him as you say "the Second Coming" do what they do. He pays if forward. If you have had a family member or friend deal with cancer, and I hope you have not, maybe you would be a little more tolerate of those who offer hope.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

SicBith said:


> It's bigger than just one guy getting knocked off his pedestal. He's going to retire after the Tour. You won't need to worry about him anymore. I don't believe anyone in the top four of the tour does not performance enhance on some level especially from 99 - 05. Let those who choose to treat him as you say "the Second Coming" do what they do. He pays if forward. If you have had a family member or friend deal with cancer, and I hope you have not, maybe you would be a little more tolerate of those who offer hope.


Armstrong, to me, is the embodiment of the "old guard" and to survive cycling needs to eradicate the old culture of Omerta from it's fabric. The way he dealt with Bassons, his relationship with Ferrari and his treatment of Simeoni and Lemond all add up to a person I have little respect for. His only saving grace is his work for cancer awareness. 

But what sticks in my craw is that one finds it being used as a shield by many of his fans, so that any criticism is treated as a direct attack on the cancer community. His charity work is wonderful, but should not exempt him from scrutiny. Just because a person has survived this awful disease and then used their fame for to help others does not mean one turns a blind eye to their transgressions.

If the Landis investigation results in Armstrong being exposed as a doper it will be both a victory and a loss. That's what makes it such an awkward situation.

If he did, as I suspect, dope to his victories, then his entire legacy is built on a lie. Those of us who want a clean sport will not be the ones responsible for the destruction of people's illusions, that responsibility lies with Bruyneel, Armstrong, Pevenage, Hamilton, Ullrich, Basso, Virenque etc.

And for the record, 6 weeks after I turned 18 I was at my Godmother's funeral after she lost her fight against breast cancer. I have no illusions about the devastation it leaves in its wake.


----------



## edthehead (Mar 26, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> His only saving grace is his work for cancer awareness.
> 
> But what sticks in my craw is that one finds it being used as a shield by many of his fans, so that any criticism is treated as a direct attack on the cancer community. His charity work is wonderful, but should not exempt him from scrutiny. Just because a person has survived this awful disease and then used their fame for to help others does not mean one turns a blind eye to their transgressions.


I have always thought this was one of the reasons Livestrong was created and touted so loudly. America loves a guy who gives back, regardless of who he is. Look at how many mafioso and local gangsters have been made famous throughout our history for giving food to those in need.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> If he did, as I suspect, dope to his victories, then his entire legacy is built on a lie. Those of us who want a clean sport will not be the ones responsible for the destruction of people's illusions, that responsibility lies with Bruyneel, Armstrong, Pevenage, Hamilton, Ullrich, Basso, Virenque etc.
> .


also Anquetil, Pelletier, Coppi, Merckx, and dozens of other great cycling champions who have used "artificial vigor" for the last 100 years. This has been going on for so long in pro cycling that if you have any illusions, you should be solely responsible for their destruction.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> Armstrong, to me, is the embodiment of the "old guard" and to survive cycling needs to eradicate the old culture of Omerta from it's fabric. The way he dealt with Bassons, his relationship with Ferrari and his treatment of Simeoni and Lemond all add up to a person I have little respect for. His only saving grace is his work for cancer awareness.
> 
> But what sticks in my craw is that one finds it being used as a shield by many of his fans, so that any criticism is treated as a direct attack on the cancer community. His charity work is wonderful, but should not exempt him from scrutiny. Just because a person has survived this awful disease and then used their fame for to help others does not mean one turns a blind eye to their transgressions.
> 
> ...


If you have no illusions about it, then why are you condoning destroying a athlete and in turn destroying a cause. He won on a "level" playing field. He just did it better then the other guys. Tolerance my friend. Just let it go.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SicBith said:


> All of the governing bodies will have their investigations just to show they looked into the allegations. LA is too big to bring down. The Livestrong foundation will insulate him from any prosecution. There are too many people who look up to LA for Hope with their fight. Hope is the most powerful treatment we have for cancer right now.


Hope is probably the least powerful treatment for cancer. It's at the bottom of the list with prayer, hand holding, and homeopathy.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> Hope is probably the least powerful treatment for cancer. It's at the bottom of the list with prayer, hand holding, and homeopathy.


I shouldn't respond to this as you're just seaching for a fight, but it is very obvious you've either lost a loved one to cancer, or are just an angry person (hopefully not both). I very much believe you have no clue what you're talking about. Whatever drug cocktail and treatment a patient recieves, hope is the foundation for the cure. You need to believe the treatments will work to heal yourself. 
enough said. Go hate on someone else Louie.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SicBith said:


> I shouldn't respond to this as you're just seaching for a fight, but it is very obvious you've either lost a loved one to cancer, or are just an angry person (hopefully not both). I very much believe you have no clue what you're talking about. Whatever drug cocktail and treatment a patient recieves, hope is the foundation for the cure. You need to believe the treatments will work to heal yourself.
> enough said. Go hate on someone else Louie.


I am a logical person. Did people who died of cancer 100 years ago hope less, or was the science just not as good?


----------



## Red Sox Junkie (Sep 15, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Hope is probably the least powerful treatment for cancer. It's at the bottom of the list with prayer, hand holding, and homeopathy.


I agree, chemo and radiation were much more powerful for me than hope!


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

You should be asking them that question. I could only speculate.

hater


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

SicBith said:


> You should be asking them that question. I could only speculate.
> 
> hater


Now there's a thoughtful response.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Red Sox Junkie said:


> I agree, chemo and radiation were much more powerful for me than hope!


Sensitive subject so slap me if I'm overstepping....

Didn't you believe your treatments would work? Yes, chemo, radiation, meds play the big role in treatments, but a positive attitute and believing in your doctors and treatments start with hope does it not? I know it did for my both of my parents.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

SicBith said:


> If you have no illusions about it, then why are you condoning destroying a athlete and in turn destroying a cause.


I somehow doubt that bringing down Lance will destroy "the cause" which I assume is "the fight against cancer". If you can point us to documentation that says Livestrong makes up x percent of total dollars spent for cancer causes worldwide then I'll agree with you.
Most likely outcome of Lance being brought down, is that 100's of millions of dollars will keep on being spent every year around the world and maybe one day we'll figure out a way to effectively fight this disease in all its forms. With or without Lance. 



SicBith said:


> He won on a "level" playing field. He just did it better then the other guys.


Agreed, he beat the Europeans at their own game. I would also like to add that he did step onto or shove a few people, along his way to greatness, hence the negative comments which you may interpret as "hate".


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Sensitive subject so slap me if I'm overstepping....
> 
> Didn't you believe your treatments would work? Yes, chemo, radiation, meds play the big role in treatments, but a positive attitute and believing in your doctors and treatments start with hope does it not? I know it did for my both of my parents.


I'm a doctor and work with chemo patients frequently. 

Prayer and positive attitude have no statistical effect on outcomes. 

You don't have to "believe" to make chemo work.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

old_fuji said:


> Probed?


 <object height="385" width="480"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/hkcIBvJU8Uk&hl=en_US&fs=1&showinfo=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

JohnHemlock said:


> also Anquetil, Pelletier, Coppi, Merckx, and dozens of other great cycling champions who have used "artificial vigor" for the last 100 years. This has been going on for so long in pro cycling that if you have any illusions, you should be solely responsible for their destruction.


So continue to endorse the culture of lies based on past precedent?
________
MissLYUBA


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

rubbersoul said:


> So continue to endorse the culture of lies based on past precedent?


that isn't what I said. My point was that if you still have illusions to be destroyed, you haven't been paying attention for 80 years or so.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Personally, if Livestrong with its commitment to 'raise cancer awareness' started taking money away from Cancer Research or MacMillan Nurses - the former does what it says on the tin, the latter provides dedicated & tireless nurses to offer the best palliative care for terminal patients in their own home.

My dear old grandad - who was an Olympic athlete - benefited hugely from MacMillan when he was terminally ill. BTW he thought Armstrong was the most appalling fraud. I suppose he died because he wan't hopeful enough or positive enough or didn't fight hard enough. Or maybe it was his punishment for not believing in St Lance.

There are extremists on both sides but the reality is somewhere in the middle ground - Armstrong may use Livestrong as a front for tax evasion (allegedly) but that doesn't mean it doesn't do a great deal of good in supporting survivors. He may be a great dad and also a serial philanderer. Life is generally a little more complex than the hater/fanboy dichotomy.

You know what I found really offensive? The bike with the 'cancer victim' statistic, conflating Armstrong's years off the bike with the number of people who died. And if that's where you draw your strength from - a man with a paranoiac messianic complex who's a spaniel and a few dodgy plumbers away from being Richard Nixon - well be my guest, but accept that others may wish to draw hope/help from more credible sources.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> Personally, if Livestrong with its commitment to 'raise cancer awareness' started taking money away from Cancer Research or MacMillan Nurses - the former does what it says on the tin, the latter provides dedicated & tireless nurses to offer the best palliative care for terminal patients in their own home.
> 
> My dear old grandad - who was an Olympic athlete - benefited hugely from MacMillan when he was terminally ill. BTW he thought Armstrong was the most appalling fraud. I suppose he died because he wan't hopeful enough or positive enough or didn't fight hard enough. Or maybe it was his punishment for not believing in St Lance.
> 
> ...


Well put.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

I must say, Bianchigirl continues to be one of the more rationale, cogent and intelligent posters here. Chapeau mademoiselle!
________
Wellbutrin Lawsuit


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> Personally, if Livestrong with its commitment to 'raise cancer awareness' started taking money away from Cancer Research or MacMillan Nurses - the former does what it says on the tin, the latter provides dedicated & tireless nurses to offer the best palliative care for terminal patients in their own home.
> 
> My dear old grandad - who was an Olympic athlete - benefited hugely from MacMillan when he was terminally ill. BTW he thought Armstrong was the most appalling fraud. I suppose he died because he wan't hopeful enough or positive enough or didn't fight hard enough. Or maybe it was his punishment for not believing in St Lance.
> 
> ...


What can man do against such reckless hate?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Brad the Bold said:


> I'm a doctor and work with chemo patients frequently.
> 
> Prayer and positive attitude have no statistical effect on outcomes.
> 
> You don't have to "believe" to make chemo work.



Glad you're a doctor and do what you can for your patients. I'm also glad you are not my doctor. Do you tell your patients a positive attitude has no statistical effect on the outcome of their treatments? I'm sure they and your partners in practice would love to hear you say that.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Bianchigirl said:


> Personally, if Livestrong with its commitment to 'raise cancer awareness' started taking money away from Cancer Research or MacMillan Nurses - the former does what it says on the tin, the latter provides dedicated & tireless nurses to offer the best palliative care for terminal patients in their own home.
> 
> My dear old grandad - who was an Olympic athlete - benefited hugely from MacMillan when he was terminally ill. BTW he thought Armstrong was the most appalling fraud. I suppose he died because he wan't hopeful enough or positive enough or didn't fight hard enough. Or maybe it was his punishment for not believing in St Lance.
> 
> ...


Everyone one fights this disease in a different way. I'm sure the charity your grandfather used was great, as are hospice care, and other in home treatment groups. Say what you want, but there are many cancer patients who do draw hope from LA. To me it doesn't really matter either way as long as whatever gives them hope continues to do it. 
Going after LA for doping is a great way to spend tax payer dollars. I for one don't care if he did or not. I doesn't matter at this point. Are you going to take away his tours and pass them down to other guys who doped? Who do you give his last tour win to? Basso, Ullrich? 
He's done anyway. My original point was whomever or whatever charity gives cancer patients the will to keep fighting (beyond one's own instincts to stay alive) should be allowed to keep doing so. Who really cares about his tour wins or his attitude or the dodgy plumbers his hangs out with. Your grandfather gained assistance from a charity and I'm glad they were there. My mother gets some energy from LA. I explained doping and his alleged involvement to her and she doesn't care. She likes to hear about his success more than his failures. Who are you to judge what is a creditable source for anyone. It's not about what you think it is about what the person fighting for their lives believes. Creditable or not if it makes my mother smile I'm behind it. I'm sure you felt the same about your grandfather.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

covenant said:


> What can man do against such reckless hate?


Reckless hate?

:idea: Hmm, more like informed disgust.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Big-foot said:


> Reckless hate?
> 
> :idea: Hmm, more like informed disgust.


Hardly, Bianchigirl hasn't liked Lance for at least six years now. 
It's called *Confirmation Bias. :thumbsup: *


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Uhhhhhhhh....*

What a positive attitude can do is improve the quality of your life during cancer treatment and beyond. You may be more likely to stay active, maintain ties to family and friends, and continue social activities. In turn, this may enhance your feeling of well-being and help you find the strength to deal with your cancer.

-Mayo Clinic

So yeh...hope and attitude are important. They may not increase your odds, but still, they are important. Certainly doesn't have a negative impact on things...


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

DrRoebuck said:


> I knew I could count on you. Worst redesign evar.


What is up with websites that completely overload people with information - so much that you can't find a damn thing?

Having 8,205 headlines on the home page isn't really helpful...


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> Personally, if Livestrong with its commitment to 'raise cancer awareness' started taking money away from Cancer Research or MacMillan Nurses - the former does what it says on the tin, the latter provides dedicated & tireless nurses to offer the best palliative care for terminal patients in their own home.
> 
> My dear old grandad - who was an Olympic athlete - benefited hugely from MacMillan when he was terminally ill. BTW he thought Armstrong was the most appalling fraud. I suppose he died because he wan't hopeful enough or positive enough or didn't fight hard enough. Or maybe it was his punishment for not believing in St Lance.
> 
> ...



Yeah, this post has "middle ground" written all over it.


----------



## Christine (Jul 23, 2005)

_he did step onto or shove a few people, along his way to greatness_

This is what changed my mind about him; the one-man publicity machine. You have to be "with him or against him," in other words, keep your mouth shut and go with the momentum. 

It's a lot like the average workplace, unfortunately. Just keep the public image afloat at all costs, truth be dammed. 

I used to think he was clean, figured it's the weight he lost after the cancer treatments that made him loads lighter, while his muscles came back relatively quickly, being a longtime athlete. His achievements are still impressive, lately I'm trying to figure out HOW he can hide any doping, being the most scrutinized athlete that ever lived.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Christine said:


> _he did step onto or shove a few people, along his way to greatness_
> 
> This is what changed my mind about him; the one-man publicity machine. You have to be "with him or against him," in other words, keep your mouth shut and go with the momentum.
> 
> ...



Lots and lots of other pro athletes have actually been tested more than Lance. That idea that he is the "most highly tested athlete" is simply a myth. I am a LA fanboy, but realistic at the same time.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2108681&postcount=143

My hope is that IF/WHEN they find LA guilty, they also prove that everyone dopes. Still, LA will be the best. Sort of like pro bodybuilding I guess. In an ideal world, I would hit the Staples Easy Button and wake up tomorrow to a CLEAN sport.


----------

