Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[rhinochopig]

Grandfondo said:

rhinochopig said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him - not in any way. I think what he did was despicable; not that he cheated - as they were all it - but they way he went about it.

However, the reason I argue it wasn't blindingly obvious was because joe public were fed a very very professionally spun story about just how much more he did in preparation than the other riders. It was also made very clear that he always recruited the best team, and the best coaches, etc. It had an air of believability about it; especially the lie about why he would be stupid to dope given he'd almost died of cancer. And at the end of the day, people like to have hope that cheaters never prosper and that even against those odds someone can come out on top - this especially true in the US psyche. And if it had been true it would have been an epic story of triumph over adversity.

The big factor though is that most people don't give a flying fig about professional cycling so have no concept about credible and incredible performance stats. And such domination has been achieved before in the early days of cycling.


It's a real shame that you were so lambasted for voicing your - correct - opinion at the time, but I think you need to cut them a little slack for wanting to believe in such a wonderful - albeit bullst - story.

More pish.

Really - well the FACT that so many were convinced suggests that it's you talking pish. But thanks for such an erudite response.

[Grandfondo]

rhinochopig said:

Grandfondo said:

rhinochopig said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him - not in any way. I think what he did was despicable; not that he cheated - as they were all it - but they way he went about it.

However, the reason I argue it wasn't blindingly obvious was because joe public were fed a very very professionally spun story about just how much more he did in preparation than the other riders. It was also made very clear that he always recruited the best team, and the best coaches, etc. It had an air of believability about it; especially the lie about why he would be stupid to dope given he'd almost died of cancer. And at the end of the day, people like to have hope that cheaters never prosper and that even against those odds someone can come out on top - this especially true in the US psyche. And if it had been true it would have been an epic story of triumph over adversity.

The big factor though is that most people don't give a flying fig about professional cycling so have no concept about credible and incredible performance stats. And such domination has been achieved before in the early days of cycling.


It's a real shame that you were so lambasted for voicing your - correct - opinion at the time, but I think you need to cut them a little slack for wanting to believe in such a wonderful - albeit bullst - story.

More pish.

Really - well the FACT that so many were convinced suggests that it's you talking pish. But thanks for such an erudite
response.

Just goes to show that the great unwashed are morons!

[Derek Smith]

This is going to hurt. The civil case proceeds:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jun/20/lance...

[Welshbeef]

Derek Smith said:

This is going to hurt. The civil case proceeds:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jun/20/lance...

It is fair enough that he will be financially punished but what is rather odd is that one who stands to gain financially was caught cheating himself and he took years to come clean...


Lastly I don't understand how Postal service think they deserve their money back they had their brand in public view for all those years product placement.

Next we will be saying that if you remember the year Button and the Honda team cheated by having larger fuel tanks and running way way under weight banned for a year they all knew about it why are all the sponsors not demanding their money back for that year + 25%?

[Derek Smith]

Welshbeef said:

It is fair enough that he will be financially punished but what is rather odd is that one who stands to gain financially was caught cheating himself and he took years to come clean...


Lastly I don't understand how Postal service think they deserve their money back they had their brand in public view for all those years product placement.

Next we will be saying that if you remember the year Button and the Honda team cheated by having larger fuel tanks and running way way under weight banned for a year they all knew about it why are all the sponsors not demanding their money back for that year + 25%?

I agree that those who cheat should not profit from it.

I think the point of Postal is that they had a contract, implicit within it was that Armstrong should not do anything that brings himself and Postal into disrepute. If I'm right, then they have a stone cold bonkers case I'd say.

I agree that others have cheated in other sports. Armstrong, however, brought it to a new level.

[prand]

Bit of a ressurection, but Storyville- The Lance Armstrong Story was on tonight. What a story indeed, so many memories of his performances and appearences put into the context of Armstrong doping all the way through. Made it tough viewing for me who was a great fan. Greg Le Mond and Betsy I felt for particularly.

I had not seen the Oprah interview before but clips shown wound me up a lot seeing he was allowed a platform for himself to control and manage his own redemption. maybe the film was one sided, but what a nasty piece of work.

[Andy Zarse]

An excellent film I thought, presented without a narrator or any editorial comment.

[ALawson]

On iplayer at the moment, half way through and cannot wait to get on the train tonight after watching Stage 3 whiz by in London.

As you state its well put together and David Walsh comes across very well.

[Welshbeef]

Andy Zarse said:

An excellent film I thought, presented without a narrator or any editorial comment.

Was this on bbc4 last night? If so I saw it very interesting and very damming for Lance - I didn't realise it was as bad as this previously however what about Mr Ferrari and the fact the entire Postal teams management were fully aware and onboard why are they not having their own reputations destroyed like Lance?


Also seems like sour grapes for his x team mates didn't best him racing for a different team and got caught cheating so to save his own skin and prize funds he grasses the whole fraud in. Not that it matters too much really they all deserve to have their sporting triumphs removed from history but they should be able to compete again if they are good enough equal bans

[Northern Munkee]

... And The Armstrong Lie is starting on Channel 4 now, saved me purchasing it on itunes.

I really enjoyed (if thats the right word) Storyville last night.

[prand]

Welshbeef said:

Was this on bbc4 last night? If so I saw it very interesting and very damming for Lance - I didn't realise it was as bad as this previously however what about Mr Ferrari and the fact the entire Postal teams management were fully aware and onboard why are they not having their own reputations destroyed like Lance?


Also seems like sour grapes for his x team mates didn't best him racing for a different team and got caught cheating so to save his own skin and prize funds he grasses the whole fraud in. Not that it matters too much really they all deserve to have their sporting triumphs removed from history but they should be able to compete again if they are good enough equal bans

Sure - the management, even the UCI have something to answer for really, in some cases facilitating and encouraging, and also protecting Armstrong in the interests of the sport and even national US politics at one point in the film.

I agree too that it would have been hard to be a competitive rider at that time without cheating, but many other bike riders did not set up a cancer foundation trading on his superhuman abilities (all pretty much fraudulent) and behave in such a disgusting way, ruining innocent people's reputations and liveliehoods to protect his own.

I was pulled up on a comment I made about this being a similar situation to Savile, but seeing this film I still don't feel it was a million miles off the mark. The guy had presidents of the USA in his pocket and had huge "extraordinary" influence, hiding in plain sight, using charitable works to protect himself and to permit him to carry out this huge act of fraud.

[Welshbeef]

prand said:

Sure - the management, even the UCI have something to answer for really, in some cases facilitating and encouraging, and also protecting Armstrong in the interests of the sport and even national US politics at one point in the film.

I agree too that it would have been hard to be a competitive rider at that time without cheating, but many other bike riders did not set up a cancer foundation trading on his superhuman abilities (all pretty much fraudulent) and behave in such a disgusting way, ruining innocent people's reputations and liveliehoods to protect his own.

I was pulled up on a comment I made about this being a similar situation to Savile, but seeing this film I still don't feel it was a million miles off the mark. The guy had presidents of the USA in his pocket and had huge "extraordinary" influence, hiding in plain sight, using charitable works to protect himself and to permit him to carry out this huge act of fraud.

You cannot even pul LA in the same sentence heck even the same book as Saville - one was a seriel nonce and sex predator the other cheated at sport and appears to be not a very nice person.

[mcelliott]

Welshbeef said:

prand said:

Sure - the management, even the UCI have something to answer for really, in some cases facilitating and encouraging, and also protecting Armstrong in the interests of the sport and even national US politics at one point in the film.

I agree too that it would have been hard to be a competitive rider at that time without cheating, but many other bike riders did not set up a cancer foundation trading on his superhuman abilities (all pretty much fraudulent) and behave in such a disgusting way, ruining innocent people's reputations and liveliehoods to protect his own.

I was pulled up on a comment I made about this being a similar situation to Savile, but seeing this film I still don't feel it was a million miles off the mark. The guy had presidents of the USA in his pocket and had huge "extraordinary" influence, hiding in plain sight, using charitable works to protect himself and to permit him to carry out this huge act of fraud.

You cannot even pul LA in the same sentence heck even the same book as Saville - one was a seriel nonce and sex predator the other cheated at sport and appears to be not a very nice person.

Similarities in the framework that they used to conceal their crimes - yes, but that's all.

[Efbe]

mcelliott said:

Welshbeef said:

prand said:

Sure - the management, even the UCI have something to answer for really, in some cases facilitating and encouraging, and also protecting Armstrong in the interests of the sport and even national US politics at one point in the film.

I agree too that it would have been hard to be a competitive rider at that time without cheating, but many other bike riders did not set up a cancer foundation trading on his superhuman abilities (all pretty much fraudulent) and behave in such a disgusting way, ruining innocent people's reputations and liveliehoods to protect his own.

I was pulled up on a comment I made about this being a similar situation to Savile, but seeing this film I still don't feel it was a million miles off the mark. The guy had presidents of the USA in his pocket and had huge "extraordinary" influence, hiding in plain sight, using charitable works to protect himself and to permit him to carry out this huge act of fraud.

You cannot even pul LA in the same sentence heck even the same book as Saville - one was a seriel nonce and sex predator the other cheated at sport and appears to be not a very nice person.

Similarities in the framework that they used to conceal their crimes - yes, but that's all.

Welsh, stop overreacting like a Mail reader on the blob!

[prand]

Welshbeef said:

You cannot even pul LA in the same sentence heck even the same book as Saville - one was a seriel nonce and sex predator the other cheated at sport and appears to be not a very nice person.

Ok , the same reaction as before. I apologise if people feel the comparison is inappropriate.

[smack]

It was interesting to watch both programs, which had used the same material the most part, such as the exchange with Paul Kimmage in California, but the Ch4 program had George Hincapie spoke of warning LA beforehand about Kimmage, and how he sat there and thought why did you come back and bring back the past. And how it took US Federal Investigators with the threat of Jail for them to fess up.

It is pretty clear, LA is a nasty piece of work, but as rightly stated it what has come out, so many got rich of the back of him that they let him get away with it (I am sure whilst the French didn't like a Yank winning, they did like all the US$ that flowed into the country every summer into the economy on the back of LA/USPS), and some including the organisers helping him such as covering up the failed test.

But one thing in recent years that went through my mind was Phil Liggett, right until the end defended Lance, saying he was clean, when I am sure he is very close to the heart of the sport as he has been it for so long, an would know everyone. Was it because he had a vested interest? Like so many, he was paid by US networks for his commentary after all. Or he was truly bought in the BS? Even as he witnessed LA walk away from the best of the best and looking as fresh as an easy training ride. As much as I enjoy his commentary, and still do, but I come to the view he was part of the show, and not impartial journalist.

[zac510]

I confess I was one of those who thought until very recently that he was clean. I guess that there are two ways you can think about this:
1. All the times he was tested (both drugs and by allegations) and size of the man's reputation and still no evidence, only accusations, are that it could be all sour grapes against him. "How could you be checked that many times and not get caught?" (I realise Lance relied on this defence a lot too).
2. The continual snippets of accusations and court cases are a bit of a 'no smoke without fire' kind of scenario.

Taking 2 is a bit like a conspiracy theorist though, taking tiny shreds of information and blowing it up to evidence. To me I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt so I chose option 1.

Both are reasonable positions to take I think as their was not irrefutable evidence to prove either scenario. Thus neither positions are wrong because the correct answer is not known. (Try not to let hindsight cloud your judgement of what it was like 10 years ago).

It's more important how you act after the truth is out - do you continue to deny the evidence or accept that you have to change what you thought you knew? Personally I changed my opinion once all the evidence was out. I'm not sure what Liggett's position is now.

[prand]

The film last night touched on the drug testing bit. The UCI were reported tto have a word with top riders if test results looked 'marginal'. It would be interesting how they defined marginal, but I interpreted that as the UCI burying positive results and protecting the riders. As Armstrong was the top of the pile, i presume he would have had the highest protection of all, deapite the amount of testing he had done to him.

Does not discount all the testing, but he was clearly looked after by the establishment.

[FredClogs]

smack said:

But one thing in recent years that went through my mind was Phil Liggett, right until the end defended Lance, saying he was clean, when I am sure he is very close to the heart of the sport as he has been it for so long, an would know everyone.

I wouldn't be too harsh on Phil Liggett, not anymore than anyone else in the sport anyway, there must have been dozens of people who knew and to be honest the journalists would have been the last to hear much other than the rumours and conjecture, which let's face it were pretty out there anyway, I knew . Phil Liggett was guilty of standing by the sport he loves and has earned a living from for 30 or 40 years, I doubt very much he was doing it for any nefarious gain.

[smack]

zac510 said:

I'm not sure what Liggett's position is now.

I found this before I posted earlier which he states his position, dated Jan 13:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13716/Liggett-no...

I have nothing against Phil, after all he has done a great job of promoting the sport in the UK (so really has also been a part to the UK's rise in success of track and road cycling, which hasn't happened overnight, and not without gaining funding which they had to fight to get) and the world.