Author Topic: Bye Lance  (Read 283714 times)

Rhys W

  • I'm single, bilingual
    • Cardiff Ajax
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #950 on: 23 October, 2012, 12:02:22 am »
I'm only just realising the effect this on the great history of the Tour - it's left a gap bigger than that caused by WWII.

Justin(e)

  • On my way out of here
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #951 on: 23 October, 2012, 07:18:54 am »
I wonder whether the other dopers will be treated the same way and be sued for their winnings and stripped of their titles - and in some cases that will be the estate of the deceased doper (Coppi, Anquetil, Simpson, Fignon, Pantani and many more).

If you read the UCI communique, then WADA will not allow stripping of titles beyond 8 the year statute of limitations.  It appears that the UCI would prefer LA to keep some titles, but it is too scared to contest the Usada judgment in this political climate.  Spineless wimps on multiple levels.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #952 on: 23 October, 2012, 08:12:02 am »
They paid the bonuses for the publicity garnered at the time. They DID get the publicity. So the bonuses were merited at the time.  I've not heard of any previous sponsor trying to claim back monies paid as a result of bad behaviour - not a doping offence of course, but Tiger Woods comes to mind.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #953 on: 23 October, 2012, 08:30:53 am »
Hey, even mrs m is getting caught up in the horror show!  This is wierd entertainment.

on a slightly tangential note, can someone point me at the blog link that was put up some time back that takes you to an Austin-based para legal(?) cycling girl who seemed to be having a bit of a spat with Mr L? May not have been on this thread, but an allied one.

I wanna know how things feel in Austin, dude.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #954 on: 23 October, 2012, 08:36:33 am »
Strong response from Pat the caid here. I think his language could yet get him in trouble!

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/lance-armstrong-whistleblowers-are-not-heroes-but-scumbags-says-cycling-boss-20121023-282nk.html

If he is as truthful as the people he has supported over the years we could be facing another decade trying to get to the truth. (By the way was his racing career clean?)

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #955 on: 23 October, 2012, 08:48:49 am »
FP's performance yesterday was all about making it all about Lance.  He dodged the difficult issues of what happens to prize money and so on. 

He was clearly flustered when asked about the donations from LA that coincided with the reclassification of a drug test failure as an acceptable prescribed drug issue but failed to deal with the question in any meaningful way.

Verbruggen, who is clearly still active at the top of the UCI, was nowhere to be seen, and despite FP 's efforts to point out how things have improved since 2005 when he took over, he didn't want to talk about the UCI's role in doping prior to that, and conveniently glossed over the scandals that have come to light on his watch.

The UCI need to acknowledge that the majority of cycling fans, and much of the industry, views it as a dinosaur of an organisation, happy to sit on a gravy train of globalisation yet unwilling to rid itself of the air of corruption and complacency that has shredded its reputation.

FP will fall on his sword, it's just a matter of when.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #956 on: 23 October, 2012, 09:19:02 am »
The French will think that Lance's troubles largely derive from being based in Spain. Their main satirical show is forever poking fun at the Spaniards, this is subtitled in German, but we're all multilingual here aren't we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNOuZofu82g

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #957 on: 23 October, 2012, 10:20:46 am »
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.

Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris.  Iambic pentameters, anybody??

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #958 on: 23 October, 2012, 10:33:27 am »
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.

Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris.  Iambic pentameters, anybody??

'Lance the Musical' just got upgraded to 'Lance the Opera'. 'The Golden Fleece'. There's still a dream sequence on the surface of the moon, but it's a tenor aria. Catherine Jenkins plays Sheryl Crow.  Can Alfie Boe ride a bike?

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #959 on: 23 October, 2012, 10:36:03 am »
...Iambic pentameters, anybody??

Only if you can guarantee they're undetectable.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #960 on: 23 October, 2012, 10:43:03 am »
I've already cast a third of the USPS team.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZYUkZ-JRCo&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IZYUkZ-JRCo&rel=1</a>

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #961 on: 23 October, 2012, 10:45:54 am »
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.

Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris.  Iambic pentameters, anybody??

'Lance the Musical' just got upgraded to 'Lance the Opera'. 'The Golden Fleece'. There's still a dream sequence on the surface of the moon, but it's a tenor aria. Catherine Jenkins plays Sheryl Crow.  Can Alfie Boe ride a bike?

Although most opera singers have fantastic lung capacity very few of them are built for the mountains  :o
Eddington Numbers 130 (imperial), 182 (metric) 574 (furlongs)  114 (nautical miles)

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #962 on: 23 October, 2012, 10:49:38 am »
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.

Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris.  Iambic pentameters, anybody??

'Lance the Musical' just got upgraded to 'Lance the Opera'. 'The Golden Fleece'. There's still a dream sequence on the surface of the moon, but it's a tenor aria. Catherine Jenkins plays Sheryl Crow.  Can Alfie Boe ride a bike?

Although most opera singers have fantastic lung capacity very few of them are built for the mountains  :o

The blond skinny one in the Texas Tenors would make a good Greg Lemond. He's pretty tall though, so perhaps Hincapie.

Salvatore

  • Джон Спунър
    • Pics
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #963 on: 23 October, 2012, 11:21:49 am »
It has been pointed out that LA has now removed the references to his 7 TdF wins from hist Twitter profile.

Does this mean he accepts the USADA and UCI verdicts? Are we about to get a confession?
Quote
et avec John, excellent lecteur de road-book, on s'en est sortis sans erreur

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #964 on: 23 October, 2012, 11:28:39 am »
Only if it serves his purpose.

Bruyneel has opted for an arbitration hearing with USADA, which could see Armstrong subpoenad to give evidence under oath.

Will Bruyneel see it through? If so will Amstrong lie for him?

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #965 on: 23 October, 2012, 12:09:41 pm »
I beginning to feel a teensy bit of sympathy for Pat McQuaid and the UCI.  :o They are corrupt and his denunciation of whistleblowers smacks of a school bully crying "not fair" when he gets sent to the head, but - what are the UCI for? They've been made, along with FIFA, the IOC, etc, into some untenable combination of promoter and judge, like Don King refereeing a boxing match. Or maybe they've made themselves into that, they're certainly participated keenly. There's also a bit of truth in the idea that fans are guilty of encouraging doping by expecting ever better performances - that most genuinely want clean sport does not contradict this, just means they and the athletes and the official bodies have all got in deeper than was imagined. Clean professional sport is probably a bit of a myth anyway, a relatively modern invention - in the early years of the Olympic movement drugs like cocaine were not even illegal. But if the Lance Armstrong case is to achieve a lasting change, I reckon that change has to be a splitting of the rule-making and enforcing bodies from the organisational side, and also in expectations of fans and athletes. And any changes in the UCI will have little effect unless other sports are changed too.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #966 on: 23 October, 2012, 12:57:15 pm »

on a slightly tangential note, can someone point me at the blog link that was put up some time back that takes you to an Austin-based para legal(?) cycling girl who seemed to be having a bit of a spat with Mr L? May not have been on this thread, but an allied one.

I wanna know how things feel in Austin, dude.

http://www.150wattsofawesome.blogspot.co.uk/
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #967 on: 23 October, 2012, 01:01:14 pm »
Strong response from Pat the caid here. I think his language could yet get him in trouble!

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/lance-armstrong-whistleblowers-are-not-heroes-but-scumbags-says-cycling-boss-20121023-282nk.html

If he is as truthful as the people he has supported over the years we could be facing another decade trying to get to the truth. (By the way was his racing career clean?)

Doping-wise, I've no idea, but from a sports politics perspective, he did go racing in South Africa when the sports boycott was in effect.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #968 on: 23 October, 2012, 01:10:57 pm »
I wonder whether the other dopers will be treated the same way and be sued for their winnings and stripped of their titles - and in some cases that will be the estate of the deceased doper (Coppi, Anquetil, Simpson, Fignon, Pantani and many more).

If you read the UCI communique, then WADA will not allow stripping of titles beyond 8 the year statute of limitations.  It appears that the UCI would prefer LA to keep some titles, but it is too scared to contest the Usada judgment in this political climate.  Spineless wimps on multiple levels.

As discussed up-thread or in a related thread, there is precedent for tolling the applicable SOL period, in the event of ongoing offences (i.e. the offence within SOL is a continuation of what started before the applicable SOL period) and/or where fraudulent means have been used to conceal offences.

As far as I can tell, WADA haven't come out with anything to indicate that they disagree with stripping all of Armstrong's post-cancer palmares, and as Travis Tygart and his cohorts are effectively the representatives of WADA in the USA, I'm not expecting them to do so. The UCI's attempt to pit WADA against USADA is just an attempt to save some face.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #969 on: 23 October, 2012, 01:27:49 pm »
FP will fall on his sword, it's just a matter of when.

His  term of office comes to an end next year so he could try and see it out till then, and then just stand aside.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #970 on: 23 October, 2012, 01:54:45 pm »
It is specific to the statute of limitations, and it is why Armstrong has had titles stripped all the way back to '99.  If he hadn't re-emerged in 09/10, this case could not have happened.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #971 on: 23 October, 2012, 02:04:25 pm »
... where fraudulent means have been used to conceal offences.
I am not laughing at you, Spesh, but surely offences are offences regardless of whether someone tried to conceal them. And concealing them using fraudulent means: is that different from concealing offences using non-fraudulent means?

See page 14 of USADA's charging letter to Armstrong, Bruyneel et al, plus Some Random Thursday's blog comments about the Hellbuyck case, all quoted in my post on August 27th:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=44116.msg1300646#msg1300646
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #972 on: 23 October, 2012, 02:15:42 pm »
Some of the arse-covering that's been going on recently has been almost hilarious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9627442/Belgian-cycling-great-Eddy-Merckx-angry-with-Lance-Armstrong-whistleblowers-for-speaking-up-too-late.html

Given his comments back in August, you'd almost think he's angry with the whistleblowers for speaking up at all. :demon:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx-continues-support-of-armstrong

Quote
“Lance has been very correct all through his career,” Merckx told La Dernière Heure. “What more can he do? All of the controls that he has done – over 500 since 2000 – have come back negative. Either the controls don’t serve any purpose or Armstrong was legit. The whole case is based on witnesses, it’s deeply unjust.”

And who was it who introduced Armstrong to Michele Ferrari, I wonder?  ;)

As a wise man said, it's better to stay silent and be thought of as foolish, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Rhys W

  • I'm single, bilingual
    • Cardiff Ajax
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #973 on: 23 October, 2012, 04:07:52 pm »
Indurain also thinks LA is innocent, what a surprise.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #974 on: 23 October, 2012, 05:01:11 pm »

on a slightly tangential note, can someone point me at the blog link that was put up some time back that takes you to an Austin-based para legal(?) cycling girl who seemed to be having a bit of a spat with Mr L? May not have been on this thread, but an allied one.

I wanna know how things feel in Austin, dude.

http://www.150wattsofawesome.blogspot.co.uk/

In one of her blogs she makes a point that I have often thought - if LA had retired and stayed out of the limelight after the 7th TdF win (or even after the 6th), he would probably have been forgotten about (or at least the question marks over his career would have been). Not knowing when to let go is a sign of a flawed personality IMHO (la Longo for example).
In all this I am reminded of the Festina case. The big difference - LA won repeatedly where Virenque still failed to make the hit. Other big difference - Festina was a police matter. Still no +ve tests though.
3rd big difference LA will never make the cycling commentator that Virenque is - doesn't have the sense of humour.