# 'Cyclists Are Said to Back Claims That Armstrong Doped'



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

NY Times article concerning corroboration of Landis' account of doping on US Postal - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html?_r=1.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

To quote Captain Renault from C_asablanca_: "I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"

The only remarkable thing about the article is that the New York Times is running this story. Doping? At US Postal? I'm shocked! Widespread doping in the pro peloton before Puerto and the UCI biological passport? NFW!!!


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

The article should really read.....
Tax payers shocked at the cost federal prosecutors are willing to pay to confirm a American cyclist used PEDs to beat European cyclists in a European sporting event. 
One anonymous source states "we have nothing better to do with our hard earned and payed taxes then chase a sporting cheat who at least felt guilty enough to start a cancer foundation"
another source states "WTF are we doing. Our countrymen are dying in other lands, our schools system is falling apart, our coast lands are sludgy, we need to do research on hydrogen cars, the line to get tax payer funds is long and Jeff "DBag" Nysleshitz should be at the back of the line!"


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SicBith said:


> The article should really read.....
> Tax payers shocked at the cost federal prosecutors are willing to pay to confirm a American cyclist used PEDs to beat European cyclists in a European sporting event.
> One anonymous source states "we have nothing better to do with our hard earned and payed taxes then chase a sporting cheat who at least felt guilty enough to start a cancer foundation"
> another source states "WTF are we doing. Our countrymen are dying in other lands, our schools system is falling apart, our coast lands are sludgy, we need to do research on hydrogen cars, the line to get tax payer funds is long and Jeff "DBag" Nysleshitz should be at the back of the line!"


More like the family structure has fallen apart. Teachers are more highly trained today than ever, yet test scores drop. I highly doubt the schools are to blame. Somehow MAGICALLY, public schools in wealthy neighborhoods still produce very high test scores. I went to a wealthy public high school. The teachers were mediocre at best, yet our test scores were through the roof. Answer: More parent "support".

As far as the article goes, I agree with the rest of what you said. 

I am on board with this statement from the article 100%:

“If Lance Armstrong came in second in those Tour de France races, there’s no way that Lance Armstrong would be involved in these cases,” Daly said. “I think that the concern is that they are caught up in the pursuit of a celebrity to catch him in a lie.”

Like I have mentioned before, really it boils down to "who gets caught" vs. "who slips through the cracks". What is silly is that most likely any rider pointing their dirty finger at Lance has been doped to the gills at one time or another, yet failed to podium.............so nobody seems to care. Ridiculous!

They should attack the "system", not Lance alone. BTW, yes I do believe that Lance was doped....along with everyone else in the top 20...perhaps even the guys at the back of the peloton. Even surviving the TdF in the back of the peleton is absolutely amazing, so I don't doubt that there is doping going on back there too.


----------



## otiebob (Jun 25, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> “If Lance Armstrong came in second in those Tour de France races, there’s no way that Lance Armstrong would be involved in these cases,” Daly said. “I think that the concern is that they are caught up in the pursuit of a celebrity to catch him in a lie.”


This quote from LA's attorney, Bryan D. Daly, is hilarious in its utter ignorance. Umm, how many times did Jan Ullrich come in 2nd to LA? Did he not have his career ended prematurely due to the investigation of his involvement in Operation Puerto? Looks like "they" go after the 2nd placed dopers too. So I think Mr. Daly's contention is daft and ill-informed in the least. Its always the same defense with LA - "they" (the French, the media, former teammates, Lemond, you name it) are "out to get him". Ridiculous....


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

otiebob said:


> This quote from LA's attorney, Bryan D. Daly, is hilarious in its utter ignorance. Umm, how many times did Jan Ullrich come in 2nd to LA? Did he not have his career ended prematurely due to the investigation of his involvement in Operation Puerto? Looks like "they" go after the 2nd placed dopers too. So I think Mr. Daly's contention is daft and ill-informed in the least. Its always the same defense with LA - "they" (the French, the media, former teammates, Lemond, you name it) are "out to get him". Ridiculous....



I agree that IF Lance happened to fall under the umbrella of the Puerto investigation, he would still have issues today. LA was not part of that and Jan happened to be. Even if Jan finished 12th, he would have still been accused and suspended.

This case with LA is about "figuring out how he won 7 TdFs". That is all. The investigators are building their resumes with the potential of busting an American Icon. Again, I do believe that LA doped, but the approach is sickening in their determination to target him when they know darn well that nearly every top contender is doped to the gills......argh!

They pitch this witch hunt as an "attempt to make things right for all those poor poor clean riders out there suffering away without access to/use of PEDs." Come on.......really???

Why do you think the same attention is not placed on Hincapie, Levi, Dave Z. etc....? Odds are, they will offer guys like this "deals" in order to bring down LA. Answer: They did not win the TdF 7 times and they would not garner the attention of the publicity seeking attorneys. Having your name attached with taking down an American Icon in the world of mega-ego attorneys is absolute GOLD!

The people involved in this are foaming at the mouth with excitement right now! Trust me.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

The fun of this is in the speculation on who is "unnamed". Kev Livingston? Marty Jemison? (he seemed to part ways pretty bitterly and I woulndn't be too surprised.) I'm leaning away from Vaughters.

I don't imagine any of the Euro riders really co-operating with this, only the US riders.


----------



## twiggy (Mar 23, 2004)

Dave Z?


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

mmoose said:


> The fun of this is in the speculation on who is "unnamed". Kev Livingston? Marty Jemison? (he seemed to part ways pretty bitterly and I woulndn't be too surprised.) I'm leaning away from Vaughters.
> 
> I don't imagine any of the Euro riders really co-operating with this, only the US riders.



Was DZ on the Postal team at this time? He's the one I was thinking would sing. Vaughters too. 

I don't remember the 'this is a witch hunt' comments from when Ullrich was being accused. 

I've wanted to see Lance fall for years. The arrogance of continuing to deny and the repeated claims of being clean while Tyler and Floyd twisted in the wind were ridiculous. If Lance gives Floyd a job 2 years ago, this never happens. All of these guys who got popped are screwed. What would it have cost a multi-millionaire to give a gig to Tyler on the LAF or a domestic-only role on RS to Floyd? Probably NOT his reputation. That seems to be what this may cost Lance in the future. Small price to pay IMO.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

3rensho said:


> W.... and the repeated claims of being clean ...


I don't think Lance ever claimed that he was riding "clean".
He did say that he "never tested positive" and that he was the "most tested" athlete.
Besides that, I would like to see LA brought down a few notches, not because of the doping, but because of bringing the worst of the politics into the ranks (hint: Christophe Bassons and Filippo Simeoni).


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Mmmmm..*



3rensho said:


> Was DZ on the Postal team at this time? He's the one I was thinking would sing. Vaughters too.
> 
> I don't remember the 'this is a witch hunt' comments from when Ullrich was being accused.
> 
> I've wanted to see Lance fall for years. The arrogance of continuing to deny and the repeated claims of being clean while Tyler and Floyd twisted in the wind were ridiculous. If Lance gives Floyd a job 2 years ago, this never happens. All of these guys who got popped are screwed. What would it have cost a multi-millionaire to give a gig to Tyler on the LAF or a domestic-only role on RS to Floyd? Probably NOT his reputation. That seems to be what this may cost Lance in the future. Small price to pay IMO.



They ALL dope. They ALL do everything possible not to get caught. They ALL deny doping. Of course they are going to deny it. Do you think that Lance is going to just suddenly randomly admit to doping when he KNOWS that nearly every top contender is doped too and not being bothered yet. Doping is simply part of the sport. It is what you sign up for when you aspire to ride/be competitive in the TdF and other classics etc. By saying that you have wanted to see "Lance fall for years" would sort of imply that you would like to see all top contenders and possibly those at the back of the peloton fall also.

Lance has done a ton to bring the ambiguous sport of cycling more towards the mainstream here in the USA. This arrogant behavior is most likely what lead to him being such a bad ass even at the age of 15. You have TWO choices when you are REPEATEDLY questioned about using PEDs.... 1. Passively deny it. 2. Arrogantly deny it. Which one is more convincing? I would say that arrogantly denying it makes more people believe Lance and ANYONE hoping to convince the public that they are "clean".

Lets face it. He is a doper and so is nearly everyone else at this level. I hate to keep repeating myself, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, who is to say that the riders at the back of the peloton are not doped to the gills also and would not be able to complete the TdF without PEDs? Just finishing the TdF is truly amazing....don't forget that.

I am starting to think that IF Lance had not been so fanatical about his training and genetically gifted with the heart of a lion (all of which are legal last time I checked) that he would not be in this situation today. He would not have won so many times and therefore nobody would care enough to "see him fall". Just using PEDs does NOT lead to a TdF victory. It is FAR from being that simple.

It has got to piss Lance off knowing that just because other dopers have not worked as hard as him etc etc etc that nobody cares to see THEM fall. Again, he KNOWS that all top contenders are dopers too.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

twiggy said:


> Dave Z?


No way. It's a no-name cyclist and this is a carefully orchestrated (and very transparent) leak.

From the NY Times story:
A former teammate of Armstrong said in a telephone interview Wednesday that he had spoken with investigators. He said he detailed some of his own drug use, as well as the widespread cheating that he said went on as part of the Postal Service team — all of which he said was done with Armstrong’s knowledge and encouragement.

*The rider, who has never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs or methods, asked that his name not be used because investigators advised him not to speak publicly about the information he provided. *He has not been called before the grand jury that has been convened in Los Angeles to investigate the case.​
Not on the list of cyclists named to be called before the grand jury but the NY Times just happened to track him down? Hahahahahaha.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

jorgy said:


> No way. It's a no-name cyclist and this is a carefully orchestrated (and very transparent) leak.
> 
> From the NY Times story:
> A former teammate of Armstrong said in a telephone interview Wednesday that he had spoken with investigators. He said he detailed some of his own drug use, as well as the widespread cheating that he said went on as part of the Postal Service team — all of which he said was done with Armstrong’s knowledge and encouragement.
> ...


It is not transparent. 

People are stupid. 

If slander was transparent, the backfiring would outweigh the benefits. 

+2 on the orchestrated part.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

mmoose said:


> The fun of this is in the speculation on who is "unnamed". Kev Livingston? Marty Jemison? (he seemed to part ways pretty bitterly and I woulndn't be too surprised.) I'm leaning away from Vaughters.
> 
> I don't imagine any of the Euro riders really co-operating with this, only the US riders.


My guess is Michael Barry. He has written articles for the NY Times so he would have contacts there that would probably honor his request to remain anonymos.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> They ALL dope. They ALL do everything possible not to get caught. They ALL deny doping. Of course they are going to deny it. Do you think that Lance is going to just suddenly randomly admit to doping when he KNOWS that nearly every top contender is doped too and not being bothered yet. Doping is simply part of the sport. It is what you sign up for when you aspire to ride/be competitive in the TdF and other classics etc. By saying that you have wanted to see "Lance fall for years" would sort of imply that you would like to see all top contenders and possibly those at the back of the peloton fall also.
> 
> Lance has done a ton to bring the ambiguous sport of cycling more towards the mainstream here in the USA. This arrogant behavior is most likely what lead to him being such a bad ass even at the age of 15. You have TWO choices when you are REPEATEDLY questioned about using PEDs.... 1. Passively deny it. 2. Arrogantly deny it. Which one is more convincing? I would say that arrogantly denying it makes more people believe Lance and ANYONE hoping to convince the public that they are "clean".
> 
> ...


I can argue your point that 'they all dope' but I doubt it would do any good. And yes, I'd like to see all of the dopers in the pro cycling fall. It makes me sad that doping has become so prevalent in all sports. I've followed and participated in bike racing for the majority of my life and it saddens me to see people who don't play by the rules get ahead. Is that the whole pro peloton? I don't think it is.
It seems that many of the people who are larger fans of Lance than our sport have now reverted to a stance that "well, they ALL doped and so Lance won fair and square". That's BS. It shows that those people are more interested in justifying their hero's actions than having a clean and fair sport for future generations of racers. This justification in the form of "well, Lance is just SUCH a competitor, of course he'd do what it took to stay on point with the rest of the best racers" is also crap. No one should get a pass. 

It's pretty clear that you are a huge fan. (Heart of a lion? really?) I respect that you probably started loving the sport because of watching LA at the Tour. Cool, we need more people like you. But, please don't tell me that Lance gets a special dispensation from blame because of his 'heart' or that 'everybody does it'. Lastly, the pro season goes from approx. Feb through Oct. each year. Finishing ANY of those races is a pretty big feat......don't forget that.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

3rensho said:


> I can argue your point that 'they all dope' but I doubt it would do any good. And yes, I'd like to see all of the dopers in the pro cycling fall. It makes me sad that doping has become so prevalent in all sports. I've followed and participated in bike racing for the majority of my life and it saddens me to see people who don't play by the rules get ahead. Is that the whole pro peloton? I don't think it is.
> It seems that many of the people who are larger fans of Lance than our sport have now reverted to a stance that "well, they ALL doped and so Lance won fair and square". That's BS. It shows that those people are more interested in justifying their hero's actions than having a clean and fair sport for future generations of racers. This justification in the form of "well, Lance is just SUCH a competitor, of course he'd do what it took to stay on point with the rest of the best racers" is also crap. No one should get a pass.
> 
> It's pretty clear that you are a huge fan. (Heart of a lion? really?) I respect that you probably started loving the sport because of watching LA at the Tour. Cool, we need more people like you. But, please don't tell me that Lance gets a special dispensation from blame because of his 'heart' or that 'everybody does it'. Lastly, the pro season goes from approx. Feb through Oct. each year. Finishing ANY of those races is a pretty big feat......don't forget that.



LOL...seriously. That is a pretty big leap wouldn't you say? I have not missed a TdF in 26 years amigo. Watched it live in France too... I am fully aware of the "other" races too believe it or not..ha. And yes..I would say that anyone who went thru the cancer treatments/surgeries that he went thru with little complaints has the heart of a lion. I am guessing that you are an expert in this too perhaps??

I would speak the same way about ANYONE is LA's shoes dealing with what clearly is a witch hunt. Look...he is a doper. I am not a "huge fan" as you say. I just don't think it is fair to torpedo him simply because he is more successful than all the other dopers.

Again, attack the system, not the victor.

Also, lots of us measly RBR members have "participated in bike racing" for the majority of our lives. That does not mean crapola...but thanks for sharing your credentials.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

Mootsie said:


> My guess is Michael Barry. He has written articles for the NY Times so he would have contacts there that would probably honor his request to remain anonymos.


Good point about Michael Barry. Didn't even think of his participation with Postal or his writing background. That makes a lot of sense. 

I guess there's a few 'unwritten chapters' of ON THE POSTAL BUS that need to be examined.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

1) Why would it be Berry when he was one of the people named by Landis? Would they not call someone named in front of the Grand Jury?

2) Ullrich was investigated because his name came up in Puerto they never went after him before that or even since. Totally different from LA.

3) I've said it before, this is just like the baseball hearings, all about making a name by getting big fish rather then actually stopping PED use.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> LOL...seriously. That is a pretty big leap wouldn't you say? I have not missed a TdF in 26 years amigo. Watched it live in France too... And yes..I would say that anyone who went thru the cancer treatments/surgeries that he went thru with little complaints has the heart of a lion. I am guessing that you are an expert in this too perhaps??


Oooh, a cred-off! I'll stand by my statement. If you have followed the last 26 Tours and DIDN'T think anything was strange about LA's domination other than his obviously superior heart and genes and work ethic, I guess we'll have to go down separate roads. 

Tell me, when you were there for Lance's chemo sessions, what did he talk about instead of complaining?


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

MG537 said:


> I don't think Lance ever claimed that he was riding "clean".


He did at least once, of which I'm aware. It was during a television interview; I cannot recall the show or who was asking the question, but I am virtually certain it was one of the Big Three networks. He was asked point-blank if he had ever used performance-enhancing drugs at any time during his cycling career (paraphrasing). He answered that he had never used performance-enhancing drugs (again, paraphrasing).

I did not find his answer wholly convincing, which is why the "paraphrasing" disclaimer is important. I thought, and a friend did too, that he carefully worded his answer such that he denied using PEDs after he came back from cancer but left himself some wiggle room for his pre-cancer days.


----------



## key (Mar 8, 2004)

*Who dun it....*

This would be a great office pool.... how leaked. 

David Clingle, Antonio Cruz, Kenny Labbe, McRae....O'bee... certainly interesting


----------



## otiebob (Jun 25, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> This case with LA is about "figuring out how he won 7 TdFs". That is all. The investigators are building their resumes with the potential of busting an American Icon. Again, I do believe that LA doped, but the approach is sickening in their determination to target him when they know darn well that nearly every top contender is doped to the gills......argh!
> 
> 
> The people involved in this are foaming at the mouth with excitement right now! Trust me.


You make some salient points and I certainly do think that LA is a big prize here but there are many legal issues emanating from this inquiry, especially since it involves a US federal entity, USPS, which makes it unique from a sporting fraud perspective in that a government agency may have been involved. 

Moreover, while I think it definitely will hurt the sport especially in the US, I think some of the desire to "bust" Armstrong stems from the fact that he spouts off about being the most tested, rider in the world and more importantly, because he has built a financial empire and charity movement based on the concept that he triumphed over cancer and then won the 7 tours without doping. Sporting fraud is one thing, but creating an entire charity movement partially-based on fraud (I'm not disputing his amazing struggle with cancer nor the great work that Livestrong.org does) is certainly going to be more newsworthy and have a larger public impact than say, busting Hincapie or others that you mention who haven't created an industry + charity based on possible sporting fraud.

It is only sickening in the sense that many will be able to confess and retire without serious repercussions whereas LA has dug a hole from which he cannot escape without either admitting fraud and possibly destroying the future of Livestrong, or denying fraud and possibly suffering criminal penalties down the line.

I have sympathy for him to some extent and hate to see more idiots in the US bash cycling as being a crooked-non sport, but I feel equally bad for the many casualties of the EPO 90's and I worry even more about the health of upcoming young riders who might be forced to dope to succeed in cycling.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> As far as the article goes, I agree with the rest of what you said.
> 
> I am on board with this statement from the article 100%:
> 
> ...


You're making a lot of baseless assumptions. You don't know who is dirty or clean. You don't know who the investigation is really targeting. You don't know whether or not people care about others doping.

That hasn't stopped you from spewing endlessly on this topic, building up strawmen and knocking them down, or finding more and more ways to rationalize Lance's doping.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

3rensho said:


> Oooh, a cred-off! I'll stand by my statement. If you have followed the last 26 Tours and DIDN'T think anything was strange about LA's domination other than his obviously superior heart and genes and work ethic, I guess we'll have to go down separate roads.
> 
> Tell me, when you were there for Lance's chemo sessions, what did he talk about instead of complaining?



Geez...really? I said that LA is a doper. What is strange/amusing/funny is that such an expert as yourself thinks that doping = winning the TdF and there are NO other factors involved. 

In your expert opinion, what separates one rider on EPO vs. another on the exact same EPO regimen? I mean, clearly in your opinion it has NOTHING to do with training or diet or genetics or pain threshold aka "heart" etc etc.

The doctors/surgeons that treated and have nothing to gain by saying so have said Lance never complained. You will probably ask me if I know these doctors. The answer is no.

You can hate LA all you want. The rest of us measly wanna-be bicycle enthusiasts will question why LA is such a target when all other top contenders are doped to the gills.

We will also accept the fact that going after LA is simply the power attorneys desperate attempt to build their resumes and "take down the giant" as opposed to actually going after the teams and the system itself.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

mmoose said:


> The fun of this is in the speculation on who is "unnamed". Kev Livingston? Marty Jemison? (he seemed to part ways pretty bitterly and I woulndn't be too surprised.) I'm leaning away from Vaughters.
> 
> I don't imagine any of the Euro riders really co-operating with this, only the US riders.


Admitted cheating doper from US postal = Franky Andreu who admitted he cheated his way onto the team.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

> Again, attack the system, not the victor.


When those 'victories' are the result of the complicit silence of team mates and administrators then you have no right to differentiate. All you are left with is a crooked winner in a crooked system. It's a symbiotic relationship, you don't get one without the other.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> The doctors/surgeons that treated and have nothing to gain by saying so have said Lance never complained. You will probably ask me if I know these doctors. The answer is no.


Are these the same doctors who got a big donation to their hospital when they contradicted Betsy Andreu's testimony about Lance's hospital bed confession of sorts?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Are these the same doctors who got a big donation to their hospital when they contradicted Betsy Andreu's testimony about Lance's hospital bed confession of sorts?


Did Floyd get an email about that too?


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

rydbyk said:


> The rest of us measly wanna-be bicycle enthusiasts will question why LA is such a target when all other top contenders are doped to the gills


One of the points brought up above (and which I was going to reply before I saw the first one) is that you don't know that they are only going after Lance. You only know who the press is reporting about - and they are only reporting about who they think will increase their advertising dollars.

Plus, of course investigators are going to go after the big names. That is what sends a message to others. Which do you think would get a bigger impact? "If Lance couldn't get away with it . . ." or "Some Cat III dipstick nobody has heard of couldn't get away with it . . "

I think most people also realize that even with PEDs you have to train like a manic and be blessed with the right genetics, but the PEDs give that extra "push."

The more troubling aspect is all of the statements that seem to take the view that it's ok as long as everyone does it and that it's ok as long as it makes money. Modern society's crappy values showing through.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Did Floyd get an email about that too?


No, it was claimed by a guy with even less credibility, Lance Armstrong.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ArkRider said:


> One of the points brought up above (and which I was going to reply before I saw the first one) is that you don't know that they are only going after Lance. You only know who the press is reporting about - and they are only reporting about who they think will increase their advertising dollars.
> 
> Plus, of course investigators are going to go after the big names. That is what sends a message to others. Which do you think would get a bigger impact? "If Lance couldn't get away with it . . ." or "Some Cat III dipstick nobody has heard of couldn't get away with it . . "
> 
> ...



I agree. Just to clarify, my statements regarding LA's possible doping were "reasons", not "justifications". As I have said many times before, I would love to wake up to a clean sport tomorrow. I truly feel that the pros would love nothing more than to not feel the need to dope and put their health at risk while constantly having to duck and cover...that seems like A LOT of effort and stress that would disappear if magically the sport was clean tomorrow and forever..


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

SicBith said:


> The article should really read.....
> Tax payers shocked at the cost federal prosecutors are willing to pay to confirm a American cyclist used PEDs to beat European cyclists in a European sporting event.
> One anonymous source states "we have nothing better to do with our hard earned and payed taxes then chase a sporting cheat who at least felt guilty enough to start a cancer foundation"
> another source states "WTF are we doing. Our countrymen are dying in other lands, _*our schools system is falling apart*_, our coast lands are sludgy, we need to do research on hydrogen cars, the line to get tax payer funds is long and Jeff "DBag" Nysleshitz should be at the back of the line!"


Clever way to prove a point! No hard feelings, just a good-natured ribbing.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> We will also accept the fact that going after LA is simply the power attorneys desperate attempt to build their resumes and "take down the giant" as opposed to actually going after the teams and the system itself.


You don't get it, do you? Armstrong and other dopers who win, are a manifestation of the crookedness and complete failure of professional cycling to clean up its act. Armstrong and many others could see what was possible within a corrupt environment and acted accordingly. They saw that to be CERTAIN of victory you had to dope; naturally genetics, training regimes, injuries and crashes lend the competition some credibility, (the point is not to win every time) but since you cannot be certain of your opponent you have to be certain of _yourself_. Now Armstrong didn't create that system but he has upheld the 'omerta', lied and spun a load of BS from the podium on the Champs Elysee. He more than any other rider has perpetrated this fraud on the public who are not as cynical as some of us here, by clothing himself in the inviolate guise of cancer survivor, back from the brink of death to triumph in possibly the ultimate test of physical endurance in sports. He's played the fame game and prospered, if he gets nailed for being a fraud, a liar and a cheat then why should I worry? You say you want rid of the disease, but you are happy for the symptoms to hang around. Root and branch, my friend. Root and branch.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> Geez...really? I said that LA is a doper. What is strange/amusing/funny is that such an expert as yourself thinks that doping = winning the TdF and there are NO other factors involved.
> 
> In your expert opinion, what separates one rider on EPO vs. another on the exact same EPO regimen? I mean, clearly in your opinion it has NOTHING to do with training or diet or genetics or pain threshold aka "heart" etc etc.
> 
> ...



Boy, you sure got me there. I don't have an expert opinion on what separates one EPO user vs. another 'on the exact same program'. How is it that you know so much of this but keep saying that I'm an expert? Sorry I pee'd in your Wheaties by denigrating your hero. 
I just think that Lance is a complete nozzle that is going to get what he deserves. You don't seem to agree. I'm cool with that but I certainly won't back away from my opinion. 
And thanks for the permission to hate on Lance all I want. Sucks that I'm alone and your opinion is more accurately shared by 'the rest of us'. (Here's where you might want to read what many others have already said within this thread) 

Based on your logic, was BALCO brought on by a power attorneys 'desperate attempt to build their resumes and take down the giant'? I think that it actually came from someone within the sport making a call to USADA. (anonymously, I've read) Cast the feelings about Floyd aside and you have the very same thing. He made a call (so to speak) and the rest started flowing. Lance is the one cyclist that the general public is aware of, so he gets the brunt of the attention. I guess it blows to be Lance right now. Sometimes you're the hammer and sometimes you're the nail, someone once said. Looks like Lance is getting ready to be.......


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Mootsie said:


> My guess is Michael Barry. He has written articles for the NY Times so he would have contacts there that would probably honor his request to remain anonymos.


I'm not so sure he's the one. He's a current rider and would have had to have spoken to them before the Tour. I doubt very much he'd have spoken during the Tour or has had time to do so since, bearing in mind he was at a book launch in London yesterday. Who knows?
My money is on one of the following

Andreu
Vaughters
Livingston


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

Boy oh boy! I hope Novitsky and the Feds go after the NFL next as I suspect there is some rampant PED use going on there that many Americans are not aware of.

For thought and discussion: Let's say they nail Lance and, in exchange for leniency, he rolls over on the entire machine and casts the pall on everyone - Contador, the Schlecks, Cancellara, etc. causing sponsors to run away in mass and our media to stop covering this "sham" sport.

Is this ultimately good or will it destroy cycling in the U.S. and turn back the clock 30 years? Reduce it to a Euro niche sport only?

Or would it be better for the UCI to admit that cycling had a sad drug fueled era until recently, clean out the old guard riders and DS ranks (forced retirements), and move forward with a stricter passport program?

Not defending LA, those around him, or dopers in general but the successful prosecution of this affair might have hugely negative unintended consequences.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

3Rensho: "Lance is the one cyclist that the general public is aware of, so he gets the brunt of the attention. I guess it blows to be Lance right now."

SirDuke: "Root the branch my friend, root the branch."

You two are echoing my thoughts. I am not sure where the confusion is exactly. You both seem to agree that LA is going to have to be the sacrificial lamb. He won while doped...now he pays for it. Hmm.

Good thing some of the other dopers did not actually ride fast enough to win multiple times. They would be punished for it now as it seems. They would then be the branch my friend.....the branch.

I would place a large sum of money on the idea that tons of top talent are guilty, yet most likely will not "get caught" in all of this, as they did not happen to actually "win" 7 times.

I would also place a large sum of money on the idea that some of the riders guilty of doping that will end up getting "deals" to speak about LA's doping.

USADA has a history of reducing penalties for athletes who provide evidence of doping violations by other athletes.

I don't advocate doping. I have to see it for what it has been...a bunch of doped up riders gunning for the top spot. I hate it. Can they fix it? I certainly hope so, but HIGHLY doubt it....pun intended


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

I think it was Vaughters. Matter of fact, I'll bet as soon as news broke he high tailed it to the WSJ and NYT's and pounded on their doors saying "MEMEME!!! I have news for you too!! Talk to me!!" 
He who doped and had the fastest time up Ventoux ever and then says some of his races were not quite on the up and up but stops short of saying what exactly that means. 
Maybe he should MAN UP and just admit he doped and his time up Ventoux was a hoax!
Maybe they should all step up and admit that the great things they did while racing was when they were "on the hot sauce"! 
I grow weary of all this!


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Lazy Spinner said:


> Boy oh boy! I hope Novitsky and the Feds go after the NFL next as I suspect there is some rampant PED use going on there that many Americans are not aware of.
> 
> For thought and discussion: Let's say they nail Lance and, in exchange for leniency, he rolls over on the entire machine and casts the pall on everyone - Contador, the Schlecks, Cancellara, etc. causing sponsors to run away in mass and our media to stop covering this "sham" sport.
> 
> ...


To me, a successful prosecution of this affair will involve guys like Verbruggen and McQuaid being exposed as frauds...so that the UCI can be cleaned up, so that it can in turn be an actual governing organization.

The sponsors running is a constant cry, but who says the sport can't rehabilitate its image, say they turned over a new leaf and get sponsors to sign up en masse. Seems plausible to me.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Hmmm.... I'm thinking it could be... Christian Vande Velde, will be interesting to find out who...

Lance even made the cover of the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/08/05/pageone/scan/index.html

Well... I wonder if LA is starting to understand how Tyler Hamilton must have felt... that sick feeling of the walls closing in.... Or the countless people he effected being the Omerta leader and bully.... Like what Greg Lemond must have felt back in 2001 when he was forced to recant his "TRUE" statement... or what Frankie Andrea must have felt like, or Simenio(sp?), Bassons, his former mechanic, and no telling who else...


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

My take is that the unnamed cannot be a current active rider. They have too much to lose. (C VdV, M Barry etc.) J Vaughters kinda falls into that category also. Would he maintain his job after talking? ( and could the Ventoux time be clean? different discussion. But man was he ticked that he couldn't continue and finish the tour during the year that he got the bee sting.) 

Frank A, already admitted and has moved on. So I'm leaning away from him based on the way the article was written. 

I'm thinking it's more of someone on the team in '99 - '01, American, on the tour team in the early years '99 - '01, retired since, smaller fish that they were looking to push the drugs so that he can support LA for three weeks. But I could easily be way off.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I think it is Paul and Phil who are finally talking. They know what's really going on.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

mmoose said:


> My take is that the unnamed cannot be a current active rider. They have too much to lose. (C VdV, M Barry etc.) J Vaughters kinda falls into that category also. Would he maintain his job after talking? ( and could the Ventoux time be clean? different discussion. But man was he ticked that he couldn't continue and finish the tour during the year that he got the bee sting.)
> 
> Frank A, already admitted and has moved on. So I'm leaning away from him based on the way the article was written.
> 
> I'm thinking it's more of someone on the team in '99 - '01, American, on the tour team in the early years '99 - '01, retired since, smaller fish that they were looking to push the drugs so that he can support LA for three weeks. But I could easily be way off.



Dylan Casey
David Clinger
Marty Jemison
Kevin Livingston - My bet


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> I think it is Paul and Phil who are finally talking. They know what's really going on.


But now Novitzky will be totally off track when Phil gets the names completely wrong!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

3rensho said:


> But now Novitzky will be totally off track when Phil gets the names completely wrong!


True. This just might be what LA is hoping for at this point.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> No, it was claimed by a guy with even less credibility, Lance Armstrong.


You shot who in the what now?


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> Dylan Casey
> David Clinger
> Marty Jemison
> Kevin Livingston - My bet


I think Livingston works in the dungeon at Mellow Johnnys in Austin. It sure looked like him.
Lance keeps him well fed and doped to stay quiet!


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

If the testimony is true then Armstrong's part goes way beyond being just another user trying to win a dirty system. If legit, then the picture is Armstrong functioning like a doping kingpin, supplying others, facilitating and using himself. How that gets excused as ho hum it was a dark era is mind boggling. 

Also, do folks really think these former team members are going to perjure themselves before the grand jury? I mean especially now that the house of cards is falling over, the last thing they'll want to do is get snagged with a perjury charge, especially when they have idea what other evidence the government is holding and who is singing.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*Speaking of Omerta...*



cheddarlove said:


> I think Livingston works in the dungeon at Mellow Johnnys in Austin. It sure looked like him.
> Lance keeps him well fed and doped to stay quiet!


...in the words of that great philosopher, M. Corleone...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

AdamM said:


> If the testimony is true then Armstrong's part goes way beyond being just another user trying to win a dirty system. If legit, then the picture is Armstrong functioning like a doping kingpin, supplying others, facilitating and using himself. How that gets excused as ho hum it was a dark era is mind boggling.
> 
> Also, do folks really think these former team members are going to perjure themselves before the grand jury? I mean especially now that the house of cards is falling over, the last thing they'll want to do is get snagged with a perjury charge, especially when they have idea what other evidence the government is holding and who is singing.


Well, that is clearly the picture that Landis has painted. While I do believe Landis in his claims that LA has doped, I would not go as far as saying that LA is/was a drug kingpin and supplied others.

I am assuming that lots of riders have "handed" each other PEDs which can be seen as "supplying". Who knows?

Again, this will make an excellent movie...at least a made-for-tv movie.. Perhaps it will show on VS...haha. It all sucks that this is happening, but it was just a matter of time before a Floyd came along. I am not saying it is good or bad....just saw it coming from miles away..

This may all help clean up the sport partially for a short period of time, but I will have to assume that within the next decade (if not already) there will be ways to cheat the system that are not detectable.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

mmoose said:


> My take is that the unnamed cannot be a current active rider. They have too much to lose. (C VdV, M Barry etc.) J Vaughters kinda falls into that category also. Would he maintain his job after talking? ( and could the Ventoux time be clean? different discussion. But man was he ticked that he couldn't continue and finish the tour during the year that he got the bee sting.)
> 
> Frank A, already admitted and has moved on. So I'm leaning away from him based on the way the article was written.
> 
> I'm thinking it's more of someone on the team in '99 - '01, American, on the tour team in the early years '99 - '01, retired since, smaller fish that they were looking to push the drugs so that he can support LA for three weeks. But I could easily be way off.


JV never got a winner's share from '99. Follow the money or lack thereof.


----------



## ksroadie (Mar 27, 2008)

At this point nothing more than unsubstantiated accusations and gossip.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

ksroadie said:


> At this point nothing more than unsubstantiated accusations and gossip.


....the definition of a forum.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

I highly doubt it is Livingston. His whole living goes up in smoke if it is him and he and LA are good friends again after a rocky period when he went to T-Mobile.

Vaughters has way to much to lose. If he is the one that brings down the house of cards, he will get shunned by the world of cycling and would be killing off the sponsorship market.

I'd bet on someone who got pushed out of USPS early in LA's era and is now not in the cycling world at all.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

You know I find it odd that Velonews hasn't made a mention of this on their website? Kind of interesting nothing is mentioned, since now every major news service is covering this. 

http://velonews.competitor.com/

Maybe I missed it?


----------



## booyeah (Jan 18, 2010)

How about Robbie Ventura? He rode for US Postal cycling team. After his cycling career ended, he was actually Floyd Landis' coach at one time. 

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=robbie_ventura05pt1


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Interesting that you consider LA as a 'sacrificial lamb' , that connotes innocence and a willingness to give one's life in atonement for the sins of others. A nice attempt at spin but that is not what I mean at all. Christian imagery is totally misplaced if you are talking about an admitted atheist who used science to get for himself what his natural talent could not assure him of. Your argument still doesn't wash, busting Lance sends out the message that no-one is immune from punishment if they break the rules. It's nonsensical to say LA deserves a break because he won 7 times thus leaving himself open to a greater level of scrutiny from the 'vampires'. If he wins 7 times because he cheated 7 times that demonstrates utter contempt for the Lemonds, Hampstens and Bassons of this world who didn't want to get on the program. Contempt too for the general public (not us cynics) who believe they are witnessing a champion who plays fair.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

sir duke said:


> Interesting that you consider LA as a 'sacrificial lamb' , that connotes innocence and a willingness to give one's life in atonement for the sins of others. A nice attempt at spin but that is not what I mean at all. Christian imagery is totally misplaced if you are talking about an admitted atheist who used science to get for himself what his natural talent could not assure him of. Your argument still doesn't wash, busting Lance sends out the message that no-one is immune from punishment if they break the rules. It's nonsensical to say LA deserves a break because he won 7 times thus leaving himself open to a greater level of scrutiny from the 'vampires'. If he wins 7 times because he cheated 7 times that demonstrates utter contempt for the Lemonds, Hampstens and Bassons of this world who didn't want to get on the program. Contempt too for the general public (not us cynics) who believe they are witnessing a champion who plays fair.


Whoa. Are you wearing your knarley boots right now? Way too aggressive. Not only are we not on the same page, but I would have to say that we are not even in the same book. I am not sure that you are even reading what I have posted.

Also, the "general public" is resting in ignorant bliss with regards to PEDs being used in nearly ALL the sports they claim to love....not just cycling. Maybe "they" should educate themselves about the state of pro cycling before they idolize this so called "champion" who they think "plays fair".


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Mootsie said:


> ....the definition of a forum.


It's funny to hear the self proclaimed oracles of pro cycling / doping excrete their opinions. It comes fast and frequent, like the aftermath of a bad all you can eat buffet.
________
HugeAddicted


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Whoa. Are you wearing your knarley boots right now? Way too aggressive. Not only are we not on the same page, but I would have to say that we are not even in the same book. I am not sure that you are even reading what I have posted.
> 
> Also, the "general public" is resting in ignorant bliss with regards to PEDs being used in nearly ALL the sports they claim to love....not just cycling. Maybe "they" should educate themselves about the state of pro cycling before they idolize this so called "champion" who they think "plays fair".




Aggressive? Who recently got a posting ban for name-calling with a Brazilian that epitomised childishness? I've read (carefully) all your posts. Looks like you are the one who gets easily upset when an opinion differs from yours. We have a moderator who will save you from tears if the debate doesn't go your way, but I'd refrain from slinging mud around here. 

Try to address the points I made, perhaps then we can engage in mature, constructive debate. All I've seen from you so far is 'everybody's doing it, Lance did it, but why pick on him? After all, he survived cancer.'
As for the public educating themselves? Get real. When the media and big business have a vested interest in promoting 'heroes' because it will make them money and they are the predominant source of consumer information then a truckload of books by David Walsh or Paul Kimmage won't amount to a hill of beans in T.V. land. Result; most attempts to look beyond the window dressing in 'sports as entertainment' are glossed over. Your standpoint seems to support that status quo.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Perico said:


> I highly doubt it is Livingston. His whole living goes up in smoke if it is him and he and LA are good friends again after a rocky period when he went to T-Mobile.
> 
> Vaughters has way to much to lose. If he is the one that brings down the house of cards, he will get shunned by the world of cycling and would be killing off the sponsorship market.
> 
> I'd bet on someone who got pushed out of USPS early in LA's era and is now not in the cycling world at all.


I also do not think it's Livingston or Vaughters. Probably not Andreu either, even though maybe Betsy made him fess up, finally? Those guys have future stake in the sport.

Probably someone from early Postal team, 1999 or 2000. Probably someone who didn't leave on good terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Channel_Pro_Cycling_Team


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> SirDuke: "Root the branch my friend, root the branch."


You accuse me of not reading your posts and then you misquote me.

'Root _and_ branch' means 'entirely' 'thoroughly' and 'without exception', 'radically'. 
If you 'root _the_ branch' you will get some very funny looks. Everyone makes mistakes in posts and none of us get paid for our hot air so there's no pretense at professionalism here but if you want to start finger wagging to justify your arguments then you had better check what you read first.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

What about Kevin O'Bee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_O'Bee

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bissell-sacks-obee-for-contract-violation



> Rider working with USADA, WADA to resolve violation
> Bissel Pro Cycling has announced the immediate dismissal of rider Kirk O’Bee for violation of his contract, implying that the rider has broken anti-doping regulations. While the team didn’t go in to details on O’Bee’s violation, it added that the rider is working with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to resolve his ‘violation’.
> “I deeply regret that a mistake I made as an individual will reflect poorly on the entire sport,” said O’Bee in a statement. “I’d especially like to apologize to my team-mates and to my sponsors, and hope that my actions will not damage their good names.”
> Bissell has distanced itself from the matter, saying that the violation also breaks the terms of the rider’s contract leading to his immediate dismissal.
> “The rider’s actions are an isolated incident that occurred independently and without the knowledge of both team management and his teammates,” read a release from the team. “BISSELL and each of its team sponsors are committed to fair competition, and support efforts for an end to performance-enhancing drugs in the sport of cycling through the enforcement of a strict zero-tolerance policy.”


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

You're both out of line. Stick to the point.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> You're both out of line. Stick to the point.


Enlighten me.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

sir duke said:


> Aggressive? Who recently got a posting ban for name-calling with a Brazilian that epitomised childishness? I've read (carefully) all your posts. Looks like you are the one who gets easily upset when an opinion differs from yours. We have a moderator who will save you from tears if the debate doesn't go your way, but I'd refrain from slinging mud around here.
> 
> Try to address the points I made, perhaps then we can engage in mature, constructive debate. All I've seen from you so far is 'everybody's doing it, Lance did it, but why pick on him? After all, he survived cancer.'
> As for the public educating themselves? Get real. When the media and big business have a vested interest in promoting 'heroes' because it will make them money and they are the predominant source of consumer information then a truckload of books by David Walsh or Paul Kimmage won't amount to a hill of beans in T.V. land. Result; most attempts to look beyond the window dressing in 'sports as entertainment' are glossed over. Your standpoint seems to support that status quo.



Again...apparently we are not in the same book. LA does not deserve a free pass in any way at all. I simply find it amusing how this is all playing out. All I have to go on is what I get from the media at this point mixed with a bit of intuition. Am I wrong? Possibly. If I were a betting person, I would put a large sum of money on everything I have claimed to be "possibly" correct. Interpret that how you will...:thumbsup: Now where is that Staples Easy Button when you need it?

I am thinking it might be Livingston btw..


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

booyeah said:


> How about Robbie Ventura? He rode for US Postal cycling team. After his cycling career ended, he was actually Floyd Landis' coach at one time.
> 
> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=robbie_ventura05pt1


Robbie runs a TREK store and VS commentating job. If he went public it would effectively end both of those careers. I was visiting Chicago last week and he was on the random FOX morning show, pushing various recovery implements.


----------



## ziggurat22 (Jul 13, 2005)

Nothing more awesome or reliable than anonymous sources. To Landis' credit, at least he's not doing all of this under the guise of anonymity.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

ziggurat22 said:


> Nothing more awesome or reliable than anonymous sources. To Landis' credit, at least he's not doing all of this under the guise of anonymity.


Landis couldn't have gone to USADA privately as they'd possibly have ignored or covered up these allegations.
A witness may talk confidentially but when it comes to actually testifying they cannot expect anonymity as their testimony must be open to cross examination by the defence. At this stage though their privacy should be guarded as their testimony may never be used but their life could be affected adversely for no reason.


----------



## ksroadie (Mar 27, 2008)

ziggurat22 said:


> Nothing more awesome or reliable than anonymous sources. To Landis' credit, at least he's not doing all of this under the guise of anonymity.


Guess this goes in the "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" category?  
Of course anonymous accusations wouldn't sell any newspapers. But Landis does have a glorious record as a malicious liar and shakedown artist (rememeber the Lemond incident?).


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

ksroadie said:


> Guess this goes in the "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" category?
> Of course anonymous accusations wouldn't sell any newspapers. But Landis does have a glorious record as a malicious liar and shakedown artist (rememeber the Lemond incident?).


So should his allegations be dismissed out of hand on the basis that he's lied before? Or should they at least be looked into and then, if they prove baseless, be dismissed?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I support the idea of investigating this issue. How else are we going to clean up sports? It serves as a deterrent to cheaters--"don't cheat because you may get away with it for awhile but we will eventually get you." That is the only way cycling and other sports will be truly clean. It is only part of the solution, along with other actions being takens (the passport, random doping tests, team supervision of riders to ensure they are not doping, etc.). But it is an important part.

I kind of wish all the cyclists would come to a mutual understanding, agree to just come forward and admit doping was systematic and they all were doing it--it was basically a relatively even playing field for them--and then move on with a clean sport. But that isn't going to happen. So it has to be accomplished the hard way, through prosecutors, courts, investigative journalists, etc.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

Ventura is also a good friend of Lim, Lim an expert at ahem all sorts of experiments. In any case, I am shocked here that there are wet nosed believer who talk about Armstrong's dope free career. Let's make this thread useful, its not about if Lance doped, it's about why, where and who, cause never will we ever see again, a man charge up a mountain to gain 5 minutes sprinting a 15% grade over 15 km... it's just not gonna happen anymore, get over it. It's about the fact that even if you think Lance did a lot for cancer and cycling in the US, the reality is that it did 200000% more for his deep pockets. I am still looking for any capital investment in cancer research anywhere in the world by the foundation and still looking for a matured, solid, long lasting stage race in the US... He let a few people down while he climbed to the top and now it's biting his ass.


----------



## offthefront66 (Apr 9, 2006)

I don't think anyone has named the rider(but I didn't read all the posts) but I believe the rider to be revealed is......Chad Gerlach


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

offthefront66 said:


> I don't think anyone has named the rider(but I didn't read all the posts) but I believe the rider to be revealed is......Chad Gerlach


He may have ridden for USPS but had left by the time LA was there.


----------



## OHroadie (Jul 12, 2010)

I would love to believe that Lances fight with cancer is what drove him to the success of a champion he is today. From my own understanding, the doctors that treated him opted for experimental treatments to keep from damaging his kidneys and lungs to a minimum. (no I wasn't there, just what I read) 

Unfortunately, bad news,scandals,and deceit will always out weigh positive headlines. That just the way our society is.

In my own opinion, I think more $$ will spent on this investigation than the Livestrong Foundation will have ever generated. Lets say he did defraud the USPS by doping and winning and created one of largest cancer fighting foundations in the world as a result. 

Please show me where a media scandal has saved thousands of human lives or give hope to those that never had it before Livestrong. 

I agree with a previous post that if this goes bad for Lance, the repercussions are going go far beyond the sport of cycling.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

OHroadie said:


> In my own opinion, I think more $$ will spent on this investigation than the Livestrong Foundation will have ever generated. Lets say he did defraud the USPS by doping and winning and created one of largest cancer fighting foundations in the world as a result.


In the almost 13 years since 1997 Livestrong & it's predecessor LAF have raised a total of approx $350M. None of this has been used to find a cure for cancer. The UK charity Cancer Research UK spent £355 million on cancer research in 2008 alone.



> I agree with a previous post that if this goes bad for Lance, the repercussions are going go far beyond the sport of cycling.


If LA is disgraced, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the fight against cancer. People will still give to charities engaged in the fight to find cures and those that support patients. And on a positive note, more of those Dollars & Pounds & Euros will actually make it into the fight as they'll likely be donated to charities that are more efficient in heir fundraising!

Livestrong - $0.45 per $ raised
Cancer Research UK £0.20 per £ raised

Do the maths!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> In the almost 13 years since 1997 Livestrong & it's predecessor LAF have raised a total of approx $350M. None of this has been used to find a cure for cancer. The UK charity Cancer Research UK spent £355 million on cancer research in 2008 alone.
> 
> If LA is disgraced, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the fight against cancer. People will still give to charities engaged in the fight to find cures and those that support patients. And on a positive note, more of those Dollars & Pounds & Euros will actually make it into the fight as they'll likely be donated to charities that are more efficient in heir fundraising!
> 
> ...


So...Livestrong is a pointless foundation?? Maybe I am missing something, but does every cancer based foundation need to be focused on finding a cure, or are there other aspects that are also important to people who suffer from cancer that perhaps Livestrong uses their monies for?? Enlighten me. Why isn't more of the cancer stricken society outraged with Livestrong if it is such a fraud? Clearly the finances are made public..

This is what they claim at the very top of Livestrong.org.

"We fight to improve the lives of those affected by cancer." Nowhere does that imply that they are searching for a cure... It is not misleading at all..


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

And what about those mob bosses, they really looked out for the community. Is it really worth it to prosecute them? Think about all the good deeds they have done.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> And what about those mob bosses, they really looked out for the community. Is it really worth it to prosecute them? Think about all the good deeds they have done.



Yeh..LA and mob bosses..nice comparison..


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

well, he is "The Boss" isn't he ?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> Yeh..LA and mob bosses..nice comparison..


The logic is the same. If you do enough good deeds, then you should be able to get away with a crime.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

OHroadie said:


> I would love to believe that Lances fight with cancer is what drove him to the success of a champion he is today. From my own understanding, the doctors that treated him opted for experimental treatments to keep from damaging his kidneys and lungs to a minimum. (no I wasn't there, just what I read)
> 
> Unfortunately, bad news,scandals,and deceit will always out weigh positive headlines. That just the way our society is.
> 
> ...


the largest cancer fighting foundations are the national cancer leagues. donate your money there. it will go directly into cancer research and treatment.


----------



## velodoom (May 12, 2004)

*Maths?*



ultimobici said:


> Livestrong - $0.45 per $ raised
> Cancer Research UK £0.20 per £ raised
> 
> Do the maths!


Not sure what your point is here. Livestrong spends 45% versus 20% for Cancer Research UK? It would seem to me that Livestrong is more efficient in supporting the cause to fight cancer.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

velodoom said:


> Not sure what your point is here. Livestrong spends 45% versus 20% for Cancer Research UK? It would seem to me that Livestrong is more efficient in supporting the cause to fight cancer.


You have it backwards, but those stats are old anyways. Livestrong is about average among charities now, 30% or so last time I saw the data.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

If a charitable organization is spending half or less of the funds raised on its intended purpose, that is shameful. At least 85% of the funds raise should go for the intended purpose and not for expenses of the organization. (I'm involved in multiple non-profits and we pay very close attention to this number. It is a big deal in the non-profit world. Less than 50% is a pathetic performance.)


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> So...Livestrong is a pointless foundation?? Maybe I am missing something, but does every cancer based foundation need to be focused on finding a cure, or are there other aspects that are also important to people who suffer from cancer that perhaps Livestrong uses their monies for?? Enlighten me. Why isn't more of the cancer stricken society outraged with Livestrong if it is such a fraud? Clearly the finances are made public..
> 
> This is what they claim at the very top of Livestrong.org.
> 
> "We fight to improve the lives of those affected by cancer." Nowhere does that imply that they are searching for a cure... It is not misleading at all..


I wasn't saying that Livestrong makes that claim rather that it seems to be trotted out as a reason for the current investigation being a waste of money and detrimental to cancer sufferers worldwide.

Talking of fraud, I'm interested in people's view of the $1m paid at the 2009 TDU. When I read about it I was under the impression that it would go to Livestrong as LA had said he was not going to be paid to race. I was a little surprised that he took it as appearance money.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> I wasn't saying that Livestrong makes that claim rather that it seems to be trotted out as a reason for the current investigation being a waste of money and detrimental to cancer sufferers worldwide.
> 
> Talking of fraud, I'm interested in people's view of the $1m paid at the 2009 TDU. When I read about it I was under the impression that it would go to Livestrong as LA had said he was not going to be paid to race. I was a little surprised that he took it as appearance money.


Actually he said he was racing for no salary and no bonuses, he never said anything about appearance fees. Nice try though.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Actually he said he was racing for no salary and no bonuses, he never said anything about appearance fees. Nice try though.


I know that's what he said.

I am highlighting my perception. When I read the reports about his comeback and the reasons together with the salary comments, I was impressed. 

On 14 Jan 2009 Bikeradar published an article about the $1M appearance fee. 


> The office of South Australian Premier Mike Rann would neither confirm nor deny reports that Lance Armstrong will be paid US$1 million for his appearance at next week’s Tour Down Under.
> Instead Lachlan Parker, from the Premier’s media department, said any monies paid to the seven-time Tour de France winner would go to the Livestrong charity.
> 
> 
> "All teams that take part are paid a fee to do so,” Parker told Cyclingnews.com. “Any fee which may have been paid to Lance will go to his charity. No further information has been divulged."


My thoughts at the time were that it was a nice gesture in line with his stated aims. Besides, it's not like he needs the cash!

But then in a piece in the NY Times that was refuted by Armstrong himself.



> Armstrong has been paid an unspecified appearance fee from the state government, with the Australian news media reporting that it will eventually total $1 million Australian.
> “I’m not going to discuss that,” Rann said. “All I can say is the benefits massively outweigh the costs, and that’s even before the race begins.”
> Armstrong did not specify the amount of his fee but said Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income, the same way he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement.
> “It’s not simply showing up to a bike race and getting paid to race the bike,” he said. “I’m not being paid to race. Is there a fee for other things? Yes, but that’s not any different than what I’ve done the last three or four years, actually longer than that.”


It struck me as a little off to say the least. On the one hand he announces that he's coming back to raise awareness and won't be taking a salary, and then pockets $1M that the SA Government thought would go to Livestrong. It stinks to me however I look at it.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Sorry I misunderstood your previous post. That being said we have a quote from LA himself versus a quote from some guy in the Aussie PM's PR department.

There are two ways to look at it:

1) Someone made a mistake and mis-spoke
2) LA is a terrible person and this was all a bunch of lies in order for him to grab money.

Predictably, you went for number two.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> I wasn't saying that Livestrong makes that claim rather that it seems to be trotted out as a reason for the current investigation being a waste of money and detrimental to cancer sufferers worldwide.
> 
> Talking of fraud, I'm interested in people's view of the $1m paid at the 2009 TDU. When I read about it I was under the impression that it would go to Livestrong as LA had said he was not going to be paid to race. I was a little surprised that he took it as appearance money.


I don't see how it could be fraud, but it didn't look very good from a publicity standpoint, IMO...

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2129877&postcount=46


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Sorry I misunderstood your previous post. That being said we have a quote from LA himself versus a quote from some guy in the Aussie PM's PR department.
> 
> There are two ways to look at it:
> 
> ...


No I didn't go for two automatically.
Mike Rann's spokesman's comments about the money going to Livestrong made sense in the light of LA's statement that he'd not be taking a salary. 
When I read that Armstrong was keeping the money I was surprised and disappointed. 
Upon reflection though it made sense too. Livestrong has two flavours - .org & .com. The former is non-profit, the latter is for profit. Evidently the endorsement deals with Nike, Oakley & Trek don't pay enough!


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> If a charitable organization is spending half or less of the funds raised on its intended purpose, that is shameful. At least 85% of the funds raise should go for the intended purpose and not for expenses of the organization. (I'm involved in multiple non-profits and we pay very close attention to this number. It is a big deal in the non-profit world. Less than 50% is a pathetic performance.)


The problem is that raising money on that level requires marketing.
Look at it this way - if for every $1,000 invested in marketing you can get $2,000 for your cause, that is still a good deal, if you want to maximize the impact of the charitable organization.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

55x11 said:


> The problem is that raising money on that level requires marketing.
> Look at it this way - if for every $1,000 invested in marketing you can get $2,000 for your cause, that is still a good deal, if you want to maximize the impact of the charitable organization.


The ratios are what matters. The problem with scam charities are that they cannibalize donated money from other organizations that are truly trying to set aside as much as possible for the real cause.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

55x11 said:


> The problem is that raising money on that level requires marketing.
> Look at it this way - if for every $1,000 invested in marketing you can get $2,000 for your cause, that is still a good deal, if you want to maximize the impact of the charitable organization.


Not according to the charity guidelines in the US. They recommend an upper limit of 35% and many well respected charities have a figure as low as 20%. 10 points above 35% is where Livestrong were at the end of 2008. In the same period The American Cancer Society raised 10 times the amount, $405,781,000, with 87% actually being left after fund-raising costs were deducted. That's a good deal. 50% is a rotten deal.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

moabbiker said:


> The ratios are what matters. The problem with scam charities are that they cannibalize donated money from other organizations that are truly trying to set aside as much as possible for the real cause.


Sort of like the '90s, when someone would set up a non-profit company. Bring in $200,000.00 for 'the cause' and then pay themselves a $190,000.00 salary for running the company and donated the remaining $10,000.00 to a legitimate charity. Company didn't make a profit, but the person setting it up did pretty well. The cause that people thought they were helping out . . . . not so much.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

moabbiker said:


> The ratios are what matters. The problem with scam charities are that they cannibalize donated money from other organizations that are truly trying to set aside as much as possible for the real cause.


"The ratios"? Uhhhhh, wouldn't it be the total amount of money that goes to "the cause"?
I mean, if Charity A only donated 35% of it's money to charity and Charity B donated 50%, but Charity A raised 100 times more than Charity B...
Well, Charity A has alloted a helluva lot more than Charity B, yes?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Not according to the charity guidelines in the US. They recommend an upper limit of 35% and many well respected charities have a figure as low as 20%. 10 points above 35% is where Livestrong were at the end of 2008. In the same period The American Cancer Society raised 10 times the amount, $405,781,000, with 87% actually being left after fund-raising costs were deducted. That's a good deal. 50% is a rotten deal.


I sit on the board of a charitable organization with a $65 million annual budget. We raise 90% of our revenues through sales and get only 10% of our funds from donations in kind. We spend virtually nothing to actually raise the money--it is primarily volunteer time and effort. 

The 87% being spent by The American Cancer Society, with a total of $405 million raised, sounds excellent. The United Way guidelines are to distribute 85% to its charities with only 15% attributing to expenses.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Salsa_Lover said:


> the largest cancer fighting foundations are the national cancer leagues. donate your money there. it will go directly into cancer research and treatment.


God are you naive... Do you really believe that non-profit organizations established around a disease have any hopes of ever eradicating that disease? If they succeeded where would that leave the non-profit? That's right, out of work. Non-profits exist to create jobs for friends (which is why the actual contribution to the disease is always a meaningless percent of every dollar contributed).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Mr. Scary said:


> God are you naive... Do you really believe that non-profit organizations established around a disease have any hopes of ever eradicating that disease? If they succeeded where would that leave the non-profit? That's right, out of work.


March of Dimes


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

asgelle said:


> March of Dimes


You are stating they have achieved their goal? Is infant mortality no more? Are the US infant mortality rates even close to the level of Sweden?:idea:


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Mr. Scary said:


> You are stating they have achieved their goal? Is infant mortality no more? Are the US infant mortality rates even close to the level of Sweden?:idea:


You really have no clue, do you? What does the original goal of the March of Dimes have to do with infant mortality?

But you do prove my point.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

asgelle said:


> You really have no clue, do you? What does the original goal of the March of Dimes have to do with infant mortality?
> 
> But you do prove my point.


Wrong, you proved mine (from Wiki):

After polio vaccine
After supporting the development of two successful polio vaccines against polio, the organization, rather than going out of business, decided in 1958 to use its charitable infrastructure to serve mothers and babies with a new mission: to prevent premature birth, birth defects and infant mortality. The organization accomplishes this with programs of research, community services, education, and advocacy, along with the annual March for Babies.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

So Mr. Scary is a cynic and somehow all of these bigwigs in charities are popping up.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> "Do you really believe that non-profit organizations established around a disease have any hopes of ever eradicating that disease?"
> 
> 
> Wrong, you proved mine (from Wiki):
> ...


so polio was eradicated no?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> so polio was eradicated no?


Isn't amazing how someone can be so committed to a point of view that they will quote the exact evidence refuting it and yet see it as confirmation?


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

The organization should have ceased to exist instead it continues and granted will never achieve the new goals... Pull your head out of the clouds.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> The organization should have ceased to exist instead it continues and granted will never achieve the new goals... Pull your head out of the clouds.


You were given an example of where a non-profit organization eradicated a disease and now the goal posts are being moved?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Mr. Scary said:


> The organization should have ceased to exist instead it continues and granted will never achieve the new goals... Pull your head out of the clouds.


Like I said, so fixed on a position they can't see the direct evidence. March of Dimes was founded to eliminate polio, it funded the research leading to a vaccine, and polio has been virtually wiped out.What happened after that is irrelevant to the argument that charities never succeed in their mission.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Mr. Scary said:


> God are you naive... Do you really believe that non-profit organizations established around a disease have any hopes of ever eradicating that disease? If they succeeded where would that leave the non-profit? That's right, out of work. Non-profits exist to create jobs for friends (which is why the actual contribution to the disease is always a meaningless percent of every dollar contributed).



I am not sure if you are referring to Livestrong or not at this point, but if you go to their website, they clearly make the statement that their goal IS NOT to find cures or eradicate anything, but instead to help provide a better lifestyle for people stricken with cancer.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*So do you hate the others who let TH and FL "twist" as well?*



3rensho said:


> Was DZ on the Postal team at this time? He's the one I was thinking would sing. Vaughters too.
> 
> I don't remember the 'this is a witch hunt' comments from when Ullrich was being accused.
> 
> I've wanted to see Lance fall for years. The arrogance of continuing to deny and the repeated claims of being clean while Tyler and Floyd twisted in the wind were ridiculous. If Lance gives Floyd a job 2 years ago, this never happens. All of these guys who got popped are screwed. What would it have cost a multi-millionaire to give a gig to Tyler on the LAF or a domestic-only role on RS to Floyd? Probably NOT his reputation. That seems to be what this may cost Lance in the future. Small price to pay IMO.


Seems to me that you dislike LA for more reasons than stated above. All the other cyclists around TH and FL (Eki, George, Chechu, etc.) all sat silent and would state unequivicably that they were clean too. Do you want to see them "fall" too?

Just curious. Hoping your hate is at least non-descriminatory.

bt


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

eyebob said:


> Seems to me that you dislike LA for more reasons than stated above. All the other cyclists around TH and FL (Eki, George, Chechu, etc.) all sat silent and would state unequivicably that they were clean too. Do you want to see them "fall" too?
> 
> Just curious. Hoping your hate is at least non-descriminatory.
> 
> bt



+1 on that..


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

asgelle said:


> Like I said, so fixed on a position they can't see the direct evidence. March of Dimes was founded to eliminate polio, it funded the research leading to a vaccine, and polio has been virtually wiped out.What happened after that is irrelevant to the argument that charities never succeed in their mission.


Fine, so I'll state that it is very, very unlikely that most charities succeed in their mission. I could name hundreds if not thousands to your statistically insignificant examples of success (and note I am not minimizing the importance of defeating polio).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Mr. Scary said:


> Fine, so I'll state that it is very, very unlikely that most charities succeed in their mission. I could name hundreds if not thousands to your statistically insignificant examples of success (and note I am not minimizing the importance of defeating polio).


It only takes one counterexample to disprove a hypothesis.


----------



## lewdvig (Oct 4, 2004)

fornaca68 said:


> To quote Captain Renault from C_asablanca_: "I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"
> 
> The only remarkable thing about the article is that the New York Times is running this story. Doping? At US Postal? I'm shocked! Widespread doping in the pro peloton before Puerto and the UCI biological passport? NFW!!!


LOL I was going to type almost the exact same words.

We should all be able to buy what these guys take at our local bikes shops. It would be safer for everyone if this stuff was all above board.


----------

