# Armstrong Implicates Verbruggen, Ferrari



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Armstrong promises to come clean about Verbruggen is due time. He also admits that Ferrari had much to say about the drugs that riders took. 





Regarding former UCI mob boss Verbruggen: 


_“Don't think I'm protecting any guys after the way they treated me, that is ludicrous,” he said, making clear that he won’t hold back. “I'm not protecting them at all. I have no loyalty towards them. In the proper forum I'll tell everyone what they want to know. I'm not going to lie to protect these guys. I hate them. They threw me under the bus. I'm done with them.”_


And Ferrari: 

_“This has never been heard before but Michele warned us in 2000 that they were close to a test on EPO,”_

Armstrong implicates Verbruggen, Ferrari for first time over doping matters


If Armstrong finally comes clean about everything, would you be OK with him returning to sport? 

He wants to come back. He says he is a competitor: _I am a competitor. If there was a race tomorrow and they said you can go do it, I'd be there._


----------



## bbrrxx (Jul 17, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> If Armstrong finally comes clean about everything, would you be OK with him returning to sport?
> 
> He wants to come back. He says he is a competitor: _I am a competitor. If there was a race tomorrow and they said you can go do it, I'd be there._


might as well let him back. It would definitely draw more fans. He's not going to be competitive anymore so why not?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Verbruggen helps Lance get out of positive dope tests. Level playing field? 

How do you say "We like our credibility" in Dutch?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Emma thinks the lifetime ban is not right. Does that chap your backside Doc?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> Emma thinks the lifetime ban is not right. Does that chap your backside Doc?


Where did she say that?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

LANCE ARMSTRONG WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Drugs cheat meets his accuser Emma O'Reilly | Mail Online

_'Lance is taking the blame for everyone and I just don't feel that is right,' she had said on the flight over. 'He is serving a lifetime ban when other riders on the team have served six-month suspensions. Why are they only going after Lance? Why are they not going after all the owners of the team?' 
_

And

_And because, for all the hurt and stress Armstrong caused her and her then partner, Mike Carlisle, there is also part of her that feels compelled to defend him against what she now thinks is becoming a serious injustice.

_


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Emma thinks the lifetime ban is not right. Does that chap your backside Doc?


It would take a lot for me to dislike Emma, she is a great person. 

Lance should have taken the same path the others took, walked into USADA, told them what he knew, and got a reduced ban. 

Instead he sued USADA, told them he would never admit, never work with them, lobbied to get them defunded, smeared them publicly. Even he has admitted this was a big mistake. He should have taken them up on their offer.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> LANCE ARMSTRONG WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Drugs cheat meets his accuser Emma O'Reilly | Mail Online
> 
> _'Lance is taking the blame for everyone and I just don't feel that is right,' she had said on the flight over. 'He is serving a lifetime ban when other riders on the team have served six-month suspensions. Why are they only going after Lance? Why are they not going after all the owners of the team?'
> _
> ...


Do her comments mean she thinks Armstrong shouldn't be banned for life? 

Or that he shouldn't be to only one? 

And that the other riders should have gotten more than 6 mos?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It would take a lot for me to dislike Emma, she is a great person.
> 
> Lance should have taken the same path the others took, walked into USADA, told them what he knew, and got a reduced ban.
> 
> Instead he sued USADA, told them he would never admit, never work with them, lobbied to get them defunded, smeared them publicly. Even he has admitted this was a big mistake. He should have taken them up on their offer.


I often wonder what he would have gotten had he been cooperative.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Bluenote said:


> Do her comments mean she thinks Armstrong shouldn't be banned for life?
> 
> Or that he shouldn't be to only one?
> 
> And that the other riders should have gotten more than 6 mos?


Considering the fact she "feels compelled to defend him," I think it is safe to assume she thinks the lifetime ban is excessive. Otherwise, she would have strictly argued for a lifetime ban on everyone.

I would guess she thinks the 6 months ban is too short as well.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I often wonder what he would have gotten had he been cooperative.


He may have been offered a spot on Vaughter's team.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead he sued USADA, told them he would never admit, never work with them, lobbied to get them defunded, smeared them publicly. Even he has admitted this was a big mistake. He should have taken them up on their offer.


Coulda/woulda/shoulda...doesn't matter now.

Most of us us have done something stupid that seemed like a good idea at the time.

And he's an insanely competitive guy. He probably looked at USADA vs Lance as another competition he had to win, instead of thinking about the best possible outcome. Win or don't win. No compromise.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Lance's predicament is entirely his own doing. He gets no sympathy from me.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Considering the fact she "feels compelled to defend him,"


She did not say that, the reporter did


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

love4himies said:


> I often wonder what he would have gotten had he been cooperative.


Just a guess, but maybe no more than 2 years. And he probably would have been able to keep at least some of his results that he lost.

Of course, when you're the big fish they're trying to land, you might not have as much bargaining power as smaller fish, but even big fish usually have something to trade in return for leniency. They wanted the whole truth from him? They would have had to offer something less than lifetime and loss of every result he gave a damn about. No one ever pleads guilty in return for life without parole, in my line of work.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> She did not say that, the reporter did


Do you think the reporter is lying to protect Armstrong and the omerta?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> He may have been offered a spot on Vaughter's team.


Good one.


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

Verbruggen's reply is quite ironic.

â€˜Since when do people believe Lance Armstrong?â€™ Ex-cycling boss fires back | Toronto Star

_“Since when do people believe Lance Armstrong?”_ Verbruggen wrote in a text message to NOS television network in the Netherlands.

Uhh.. actually a lot of people did, for many many years. Ironic cause that was exactly the defence used by Armstrong against his accusers.


----------



## misterwaterfallin (Sep 14, 2012)

bbrrxx said:


> might as well let him back. It would definitely draw more fans. He's not going to be competitive anymore so why not?


He doesn't want to go back to bike racing, he wants to go race Tri's


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> She did not say that, the reporter did


From the article:

"'Lance is taking the blame for everyone and I just don't feel that is right,' she had said on the flight over. 'He is serving a lifetime ban when other riders on the team have served six-month suspensions. Why are they only going after Lance? Why are they not going after all the owners of the team?' 

Read more: LANCE ARMSTRONG WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Drugs cheat meets his accuser Emma O'Reilly | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> From the article:
> 
> "'Lance is taking the blame for everyone and I just don't feel that is right,' she had said on the flight over. 'He is serving a lifetime ban when other riders on the team have served six-month suspensions. Why are they only going after Lance? Why are they not going after all the owners of the team?'


Stating a misguided opinion does not mean she is leading some "Free Lance" crusade.

She was talked into something she will likely regret later.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Fireform said:


> Lance's predicament is entirely his own doing. He gets no sympathy from me.


Me neither.

It's a little like Al Capone complaining that the getaway car driver should be doing 30 years hard time with him on Alcatraz in the next cell. Besides, the claims against Verbruggen, McQuaid and Ferrari have to be investigated and assessed by the responsible bodies. The arbitration between USADA and Bruyneel hasn't even started fer chrissakes and yet people think Lancey Boy should be allowed back into competition. Ridiculous.

To paraphrase a Lance quote directed at David Walsh, exceptional cheating requires exceptional punishment. 

And Lance cheated...'exceptionally'.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> *Most of us us have done something stupid that seemed like a good idea at the time*.
> 
> And he's an insanely competitive guy. He probably looked at USADA vs Lance as another competition he had to win, instead of thinking about the best possible outcome. Win or don't win. No compromise.


I sincerely hope your work is entirely unrelated to the legal profession. Bank robbers would love you.

This isn't an isolated case of starting a fight in a bar, calling your wife fat or telling your boss where he can stick his job in the heat of the moment. This is an entire career of cold, dispassionate, premeditated, calculated cheating, lying (including under oath), intimidation and baseless legal bullying. Putting all that under the uncritical catch-all of 'insanely competitive' is a crass misrepresentation of Armstrong's methods and motives. I think the idea is to be 'insanely competitive' _within the rules you agreed to_. Go beyond that and it's called cheating. I guess Travis Tygart is 'insanely competitive' too. :thumbsup:


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

misterwaterfallin said:


> He doesn't want to go back to bike racing, he wants to go race Tri's


Try this trifecta
No credibility
No respect
No job.

He drove it all himself and he still wants to play the " I was just one of the guys" card. BS, he ruined careers to build his own, that is totally beyond the pall. Let him try another profession like those he forced out of cycling had to do.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Stating a misguided opinion does not mean she is leading some "Free Lance" crusade.
> 
> She was talked into something she will likely regret later.


Don't be obtuse. 

I quote an actual article based on a reporter who actually spoke to her, and used her own words, yet you inject speculation and nonsense to accuse her of being "misguided."


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

kiwisimon said:


> Try this trifecta
> BS, he ruined careers to build his own, that is totally beyond the pall. Let him try another profession like those he forced out of cycling had to do.


But he didn't do this on his own and I think that's why some people have such a problem with the hammer falling so hard on him. It was the whole "system" that *allowed* doping to get as bad as it did back then. There was corruption from the UCI to team managers/owners that turned their backs on doping and lying and in my mind that is encouraging the practice to flourish. If Lance wasn't treated as such a "special" rider, he would have been stopped in his tracks early in his career and it wouldn't have gotten out of hand. 

That is what Emma saw and that is why Emma doesn't think Lance should be the only one punished as he has been.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Don't be obtuse.
> 
> I quote an actual article based on a reporter who actually spoke to her, and used her own words, yet you inject speculation and nonsense to accuse her of being "misguided."


Post, not poster. 

The quote you used was the reporter's, not Emma's. 

Emma is indeed misguided. Lance is not "taking the blame for everyone" Marti, Bruyneel, Celya, del Moral, Ferrari. All are done for life. Dag and Duffy are under investigation by the Belgium Fed and police. They are going after the owners of the team, Lance and Johan were both owners. The other owners never signed the WADA code so there is no way for USADA to go after them. Do you really think USADA can sanction Weisel? 

Emma is a nice girl. It is unfortunate she was manipulated into participating in this PR stunt


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Emma is a nice girl. It is unfortunate she was manipulated into participating in this PR stunt


So what do you know that the rest of us don't? That somebody was manipulating her and she didn't want to do this on her own even though it seems like from the article that she did want to meet him? That she is not a strong person and can't think and speak for herself? That the reporter and Lance are in cahoots together for a publicity stunt even though it was Emma that wanted him there? That even though she worked closely with Lance and his team that she has now forgotten how evil he was/is? 

Indeed I do believe from what I've read of her that she is a wonderful, compassionate person. It sounds like she was very concerned about the riders' health and wanted the managers to stop the doping. From my take of this, is that she didn't want to meet Lance on her own, that she did want some type of record of what was being said.

From: LANCE ARMSTRONG WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Drugs cheat meets his accuser Emma O'Reilly | Mail Online



> Armstrong has come alone, while O'Reilly's desire to retain some control of the situation led to her asking me to accompany her on the flight from Manchester to Orlando to report on their meeting. It should be made clear that she paid for her own flight and accommodation.


And



> 'It was too big a situation to just have a chat about it on the phone,' she says. 'I wanted to eyeball him. You can't keep kicking an injured dog. I wasn't here to humiliate him. But I wanted closure.'


Sounds like this was her idea and she wanted the reporter there.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Post, not poster.
> 
> The quote you used was the reporter's, not Emma's.
> 
> ...


The way I see it, Emma is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to mine. Its just her opinion, afterall; its not like she's written some brilliant legal defense based on the WADA Code or something. 

I think Armstrong doped for years, covered it up, etc... I think he has no place in sport. He earned his lifetime ban. I do think some of the stuff people say about him goes too far (psychopath, etc...) 

I think WADA could stand to clarify what is a 'first offense' when someone gets caught after the fact when they doped for years. Should years of doping just be 'one strike?'


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

love4himies said:


> But he didn't do this on his own and I think that's why some people have such a problem with the hammer falling so hard on him. It was the whole "system" that *allowed* doping to get as bad as it did back then. There was corruption from the UCI to team managers/owners that turned their backs on doping and lying and in my mind that is encouraging the practice to flourish. If Lance wasn't treated as such a "special" rider, he would have been stopped in his tracks early in his career and it wouldn't have gotten out of hand.
> 
> That is what Emma saw and that is why Emma doesn't think Lance should be the only one punished as he has been.


It seems a lot of people are getting sucked into this moral equivalence fallacy that Lance is peddling. He doped, they doped, he lied, they lied, 'so folks, what's the difference other than the scale of my punishment'? Its crap. 

Part of the way justice works is that judgements and punishments contain a clear retributive element. The more serious your crime against society, the more severe the sanctions against you will be. This is clearly understood and accepted by most societies. Of course, USADA isn't a court of law but is there to enforce a code agreed upon by the smaller community of sportsmen and women who agree to compete drug-free under it's jurisdiction. Lance held out as long as possible, was found to be the prime mover and principle doper among those USADA looked at, was a prime agent in persuading others to get on a doping program etc. 'Motoman' was Lance's idea. In other words he was the BIG DOG. (Notice how he has always been at pains to tell the world how 'conservative' the doping regime at Postal was). How he got to _stay_ the BIG DOG and escape detection for so long is down to systemic corruption and connivance by team owners and sponsors, race organisers, the media and others close to the sport. Those people need to be investigated and where found guilty, sanctioned as well. 

BUT treating this as some lopsided and unfair pursuit of Armstrong is plain daft. A wounded ego lashing out at his accusers doesn't make for the most compelling case against unjust treatment. It's clear that Lance wants to see Verbruggen burn as vengeance for perceived wrongs, nothing more nothing less. Lance cares about Lance. When that's understood all this crybaby nonsense can be seen for what it so clearly is.

Lance got all the fame and most of the fortune, (Andreu even had to chase him down for the team's share of prize money after one Tour victory)- who the hell knew or cared about Hincapie, Leipheimer, Livingston or Andreu? Armstrong should be flattered that he now has a proportionate share of infamy. He's earned it.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

kiwisimon said:


> Try this trifecta
> No credibility
> No respect
> No job.
> ...


Refreshing to see someone around here with a clue.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Refreshing to see someone around here with a clue.


Was there doping before or after Lance?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

For some time the justification for going after Armstrong AFTER HIS RETIREMENT was to clean up the sport. Going after Armstrong opened the floodgates on a group of bad actors. 

Now Emma Oreilly has voiced injustice that Armstrong has taken the brunt of the punishment while others got off with temporary bans. 


Well, if getting Armstrong was part of a bigger picture and is now cooperating in order to catch other bad actors, what's wrong with what Emma OReilly pointing out the unbalanced punishment?


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> For some time the justification for going after Armstrong AFTER HIS RETIREMENT was to clean up the sport. Going after Armstrong opened the floodgates on a group of bad actors.
> 
> 
> Well, if getting Armstrong was part of a bigger picture and is now cooperating in order to catch other bad actors,* what's wrong with what Emma OReilly pointing out the unbalanced punishment?*


Nothing, it's her opinion. But if people think LA would be so forthcoming without a life ban, they are being incredibly naive. The Texas turd is trying to salvage something and don't forget Emma was quite integral to his fraud, she is not 100% innocent.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

kiwisimon said:


> Nothing, it's her opinion. But if people think LA would be so forthcoming without a life ban, they are being incredibly naive. The Texas turd is trying to salvage something and don't forget Emma was quite integral to his fraud, she is not 100% innocent.


Nice one. Blame a victim, eh? Classy!


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> Nice one. Blame a victim, eh? Classy!


Did you miss the part where she smuggled illicit drugs across international borders? I wasn't blaming her, I was simply stating that she is not totally innocent. How is she a victim of his cheating? A victim of his vitriol sure (after her conscience got to her) but she suffered nothing that she didn't bring on herself, many cyclists have walked away rather than cheat, she didn't. BTW LA still hasn't apologised to her. That's classy!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

kiwisimon said:


> Did you miss the part where she smuggled illicit drugs across international borders? I wasn't blaming her, I was simply stating that she is not totally innocent. How is she a victim of his cheating? A victim of his vitriol sure (after her conscience got to her) but she suffered nothing that she didn't bring on herself, many cyclists have walked away rather than cheat, she didn't. BTW LA still hasn't apologised to her. That's classy!


Irish masseuse Emma O’Reilly rejects attempted apology from Lance Armstrong -VIDEO | Irish News | IrishCentral


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

kiwisimon said:


> Did you miss the part where she smuggled illicit drugs across international borders? I wasn't blaming her, I was simply stating that she is not totally innocent. How is she a victim of his cheating? A victim of his vitriol sure (after her conscience got to her) but she suffered nothing that she didn't bring on herself, many cyclists have walked away rather than cheat, she didn't. BTW LA still hasn't apologised to her. That's classy!


Didn't you year? She's just misguided and being female, easily manipulated.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Personal nonsense deleted- stick to the thread. If you two can't get along, use the "ignore" feature.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Personal nonsense deleted- stick to the thread. If you two can't get along, use the "ignore" feature.


With all due respect being accused of racism goes beyond 'personal nonsense'. I've put him on ignore before, quite happy to do so again. Take a little more time to look at the merits of the posts before deciding that we are equally at fault.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Irish masseuse Emma O’Reilly rejects attempted apology from Lance Armstrong -VIDEO | Irish News | IrishCentral


Yes, Armstrong did apologize or attempt to apologize. And she rejected it 10 months ago. Has her position changed? I recall an interview in which she said she would like an in-person apology, without the press. 

It doesn't matter much. Emma Oreilly is one character in a massive drama. Whether she accepts Armstrong's apology or harbors resentment until her death isn't particularly relevant. (If Armstrong really wants to apologize he can write her a check.) 


_______________________________________________________________



Here is the important question: *How will Armstrong's revelations about Verbruggen change the sport? *


Obviously we cannot answer it now. But it will be interesting to watch.


----------

