Professional Cycling For the Fans - NY Times: Other riders now corroborating Landis's stories about Lance

Just posted (Wednesday evening, August 4) at NY Times.com:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html

"Federal prosecutors have intensified their criminal investigation of the cyclist Lance Armstrong since the end of the Tour de France last month. They questioned many of his former associates, including cyclists who have supported and detailed claims that Armstrong and his former United States Postal Service team participated in systematic doping, according to a cyclist who has been interviewed and two others privy to the inquiry."

Looks like this will be Page 1 of the NY Times tomorrow, according to a footnote printed online:
A version of this article appeared in print on August 5, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.

uh-oh.

This unnamed rider would have to be American (else why bother even talking to American officials?), and the only US Postal one that comes to mind is ... Hincapie. I sure hope not.

This unnamed rider would have to be American (else why bother even talking to American officials?), and the only US Postal one that comes to mind is ... Hincapie. I sure hope not.

There are names that come much more immediately to mind than Hincapie.

I admire Lance as much as anybody, but I won't be surprised if this turns out to be true. A neighbor of mine is a sports agent, a former major college quarterback who went to law school and represents several big-name athletes, primarily in the NFL but also some NBA players. He claims that at the top level, drug use is universal. The rewards are so great and the difference between making it and falling a tiny fraction short is so small that "nobody can resist the pressure. It's the difference between making $5 million a year and looking for a job selling insurance."

Not surprising. But again, can they really do anything with a bunch of he-said, she-said testimony?

Can we first clear the air on this thread: Armstrong doped. Probably a lot of different methods, techniques and substances. But the question remains - what evidence do they have that will do anything aside from drag Lance and the sport in the mud. If they can find the evidence (correspondence, money trail, etc...), please go forward and expose Lance (who has been a fraud - and I would have respected more had he not tried to suck all of the oxygen in the room, and marketed Lance over cycling). In addition, I would have respected him more had he not tried to be more than a cyclist, especially since he doped. Serious cycling fans, we know the game they must play, but to market himself to the unsuspecting and gullible public....sad.

But if this is not going to lead to any conclusion (Barry Bonds is still free folks), then I am starting to feel this is going to be a bad outcome for all. Look - nothing makes me happier than the idea of finally, destroying the fantasy world so many Lance fanboys live in. But if this results in enough plausible deniability, then we are back where we belong, albeit a more tarnished spor

This unnamed rider would have to be American (else why bother even talking to American officials?), and the only US Postal one that comes to mind is ... Hincapie. I sure hope not.

Lepheimer? He was just implicated for blood doping today by his former manager from the Gerolsteiner.
Zabriskie - his current manager has made overtures that any rider on his team should come forward.
Hamilton...he is coaching middle-aged women to rider centuries. Need I say more.
Hincapie - of all the riders, this is the guy who most intrigues me. He not only has his years of riding with Lance, he has his business as well, which, due to the name, could take a marketing and business results hit from this situation.
Frankie Andreu - while he made up in time for Versus interviews, federal investigations...not so sure.

Name any other Postal rider and I would suspect the Feds have entertained talking to them.

Is this really the best use of tax payer money right now?

Can we first clear the air on this thread: Armstrong doped.

Ok thank you Mr. Genius.

Is this really the best use of tax payer money right now?

That stupid Justice Department, doin' it's job. Prosecutin' cases. What's up with that? How could American tax payers possibly benefit from the investigation of possible defrauding of the US government (and therefore, um, tax payers) by a sports company? I don't think the government should be in the business of collecting damages from said crimes, nor attempting to deter future acts of fraud! I demand my money back!

I admire Lance as much as anybody, but I won't be surprised if this turns out to be true. A neighbor of mine is a sports agent, a former major college quarterback who went to law school and represents several big-name athletes, primarily in the NFL but also some NBA players. He claims that at the top level, drug use is universal. The rewards are so great and the difference between making it and falling a tiny fraction short is so small that "nobody can resist the pressure. It's the difference between making $5 million a year and looking for a job selling insurance."

And this is why I cannot fault them for doping, especially when the testing is so weak. However - there is a fine line between succeeding while cheating and not then taking it a step further P.R. (i.e - keep a low profile), and what Lance did.

Ok thank you Mr. Genius.

Dude - if there was not a population of Lance Fan Boys, this would not necessary. But I wanted to clarify my personal position about what happened, versus my concern about the process going forward.

It's hard to downplay him having had a rockstar girlfriend who has a bit of a drug history.

It's hard to downplay him having had a rockstar girlfriend who has a bit of a drug history.

First of all, recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs are two completely separate animals. Secondly, Sheryl Crow, from what I've read, doesn't have much of a drug use history besides smoking a little weed.

First of all, recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs are two completely separate animals. Secondly, Sheryl Crow, from what I've read, doesn't have much of a drug use history besides smoking a little weed.

I second this. I imagine the other poster is such a teetotaler that a little recreational drug use is scandalous.

I guess I don't see the reason at this point in time. All it will do is make cycling's image more tarnished.

Its like if Usain Bolt is doping. Many people know who he is and it brings attention to Track and Field. The more attention to Track, the more money that sponsors give out to athletes.

Lepheimer? He was just implicated for blood doping today by his former manager from the Gerolsteiner.
Zabriskie - his current manager has made overtures that any rider on his team should come forward.
Hamilton...he is coaching middle-aged women to rider centuries. Need I say more.
Hincapie - of all the riders, this is the guy who most intrigues me. He not only has his years of riding with Lance, he has his business as well, which, due to the name, could take a marketing and business results hit from this situation.
Frankie Andreu - while he made up in time for Versus interviews, federal investigations...not so sure.

Name any other Postal rider and I would suspect the Feds have entertained talking to them.

Excellent points, and I did forget about DZ & Bottle. Landis and Andreu, meh, they've got well-publicized anti-Lance axes to grind, and Hamilton's got no more credibility than Landis. One of the reasons I don't think (hope?) it will be Hincapie is his lack of big wins, although he was indeed riding for Postal when he won that TdF mountain stage in 2005. It seems to me he never climbed well after that.

This is mostly a witch hunt, I'm sure they'll find some skeletons in his closet.

It doesn't make sense because the sport, any sport, won't ever be clean. If you're gonna compete you'll be faced with competitors who will take banned performance enhancing solutions and beat you.

Next up: Lance Armstrong made us all dope.

Just because you take a steroid or blood transfusion doesn't mean you won't be working hard as you would without one - it's not exactly a free ticket to the podium.

This is mostly a witch hunt, I'm sure they'll find some skeletons in his closet.

It doesn't make sense because the sport, any sport, won't ever be clean. If you're gonna compete you'll be faced with competitors who will take banned performance enhancing solutions and beat you.

Next up: Lance Armstrong made us all dope.

Just because you take a steroid or blood transfusion doesn't mean you won't be working hard as you would without one - it's not exactly a free ticket to the podium.

I agree with one point - how many times a month is some football player caught using PED's, and no-one says a thing. I think cycling is so much like baseball (an individual sport wrapped around a team premise), and stats (power to weight vs. batting average), that it gets hurt more by these allegations.

The comment from Armstrong's lawyer stood out to me:

To the extent that there’s anyone besides Floyd Landis saying things, the bottom line is, if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing.
Evidently we need to add "Cast doubt on the validity of any possible positive test results" to the list of Armstrong's strategies, joining "Talk up Landis as an admitted liar and cheat", along with the tried and true, "The French are jealous and bitter I won their race too many times", the media or "that guy" David Walsh) are out to get me, it's just a "witch hunt" or "circus", LeMond is a bitter old man, etc.

We see a shift away from the "Most tested athlete ever" strategy. (Florence Griffith "Flo-Jo" Joyner never tested postive either...anyone out there believe she never used PED's?).

By now, forceful denials from Armstrong don't necessarily count for much...Marion Jones and Rafael Palmeiro gave particularly forceful denials too.

The interesting thing is that there is perhaps now a more critical mass of people with knowledge willing to (or feeling forced to) speak. Up until now, Armstrong has counted on his secret being kept...those who knew anything were either too close to him (his wife), guilty of similar things themselves (teammates, other riders), too invested in his success(his sponsors, the cycling world in general), afraid of being tarred or blacklisted if they said anything (see what happened to LeMond, the Andrieus), or wrapped up in the iconic cancer survivor image (fans).

Landis had already been booted out of the sport so had more to gain than lose by speaking out. LeMond has certainly taken a lot of abuse for his comments over the years; he may have been motivated by self interest, but most of what he has said may very well all be true too.

"Novitzky...is trying to determine if Armstrong, his teammates, the owners or managers of his former team conspired to defraud their sponsors by doping to improve their performance and win more money and prizes."

How were the sponsors defrauded? I could see that happening if an athlete loses intentionally and collects on bets against her or himself. I'd like to know how acting to increase the chance to "win more money and prizes" defrauds a sponsor.

"Novitzky...is trying to determine if Armstrong, his teammates, the owners or managers of his former team conspired to defraud their sponsors by doping to improve their performance and win more money and prizes."

How were the sponsors defrauded? I could see that happening if an athlete loses intentionally and collects on bets against her or himself. I'd like to know how acting to increase the chance to "win more money and prizes" defrauds a sponsor.

Really, is this a serious question?

Sponsors want to be associated with winners, but only winners who "play fair" by the rules of the sport that they are in. No big brand wants to give money to a team that wins but then is subsequently found to have cheated. Lots of sponsors of pro cycling teams have this in their contracts now. It's the same thing that most pro athletes now have "morals clauses" in their sponsorship deals. So an athlete gets in drugs/money/PEDS/gambling/marriage problems, his sponsors have a pre-arranged right to withdraw their sponsorship money.

The fraud occurs when someone violates the sponsorship contract, and then denies it. Or hides money spent to perpetuate the fraud; lies about it; induces others to lie about it, etc.

Whether you think Lance is guilty or not -- or whether you even think this particular investigation is worth pursuing -- you ought to understand why sponsors don't want to be associated with teams or athletes who "cheat" to win.

That's why this whole topic is so damaging to the whole sport. Does anyone think Trek is happy about being dragged into this? (recall that they have been asked to produce documents related the alleged sale of bikes to pay for doping). Do you think that this increases or decreases Trek's willingness to spend money sponsoring race teams going forward?

So if they drag Armstrong down, then what about the other teams during that period. Will the Europeans reclaim all the TdF titles? Educate me on this please.

This sucks!

So if they drag Armstrong down, then what about the other teams during that period. Will the Europeans reclaim all the TdF titles? Educate me on this please.

Ummmm, you do know the record of the "other teams" during this period, don't you?

If not, read this series of articles; it's in four parts:

Part 1:

http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/73

Part 3 is interesting:

http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/99

BengeBoy wrote:

"Sponsors want to be associated with winners, but only winners who "play fair" by the rules of the sport that they are in. No big brand wants to give money to a team that wins but then is subsequently found to have cheated."

A good point. But then, the people in charge of the companies that are sponsors of people like Lance Armstrong knew - just as you did - that people like Lance Armstrong doped. These sponsors were more than happy to turn a blind eye to situation, and keep on with their sponsorships, even as rider after rider after rider was caught doping or admitted to having doped.

Admittedly, I dropped out of law school after just one semester, but it doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that the only people who are going to feel defrauded out of something are U.S. attorneys, should they ever bring a prosecution and lose.

While sponsors (who could just as well be called investors) might be saddened to learn that the potential gravy train is over when it's discovered that an athlete doped, don't imagine they feel defrauded. No, the sponsors feel enriched.

Sponsors invest in an athlete to earn a return. Therefore, the CEO of Nike won't thump his forehead, shout out "Doh! I was SO stupid" and sue Lance Armstrong, if he's ever found guilty of a crime, demanding his company's money back, anymore than the sponsors of Tiger Woods have felt cheated because Woods cheated on his wife.

Frankly, Nike didn't care if Armstrong used steroids, EPO, or black magic to win bike races. Nike and the other sponsors only cared that he win his races....and didn't get caught doping. Therefore, while the sponsors are sick that the gravy train might be over, they are not sick that Lance Armstrong doped. It's not the doping that bothers sponsors, it's that the law is sticking its nose in a place the sponsors don't want it. They'd like to chop off that nose.

And that is why the sponsors of Lance Armstrong were not defrauded. They got exactly what they wanted, a good return on their investment, even as they knew the risks involved.

As for Trek, the company has admitted having suspicions about the inappropriate sale of their bikes. Is Trek sorry NOW? You bet. Was Trek worried enough BEFORE to drop its sponsorship? Absolutely not. Trek admitted it knew what was happening with its bikes, but it turned a blind eye.

So Trek didn't feel defrauded BEFORE an investigation began, even though it was aware of shenanigans. Trek was very happy with the arrangement. It's only NOW that Trek is worried, but not about the return on their investment. They ARE worried because it's been revealed that higher-ups in the company had some direct knowledge of what was going on.

If Lance were to be convicted of something, Nike and Trek, etc., aren't going to come out with commercials apologizing for their association with him, anymore than Tiger Woods' sponsors have released mea culpas for erroneously believing in the integrity of the world's number one golfer.

To sum up: sponsors knew what they were getting into, and in the case of Armstrong, have made huge returns on their investment that cannot be negated by anything that happens in the future. That is why no fraud took place.

However, if Armstrong had consistently been a poor performer after garnering contracts from sponsors like Nike and Trek, and had those sponsors learned that Armstrong was earning less "monies and prizes" because he hadn't been doping, THEN those sponsors would believe they had been defrauded.

To sum up: sponsors knew what they were getting into, and in the case of Armstrong, have made huge returns on their investment that cannot be negated by anything that happens in the future. That is why no fraud took place.

Thanks for clarifying -- I missed the point the first time around.

I might not state what you said as strongly as you did, but I would concede: maybe (some) sponsors don't care as much about doping as they do about athletes being *caught* doping and then not being able to untangle themselves from the mess. Maybe Nike -- because of their exposure in lots and lots of different gray areas of sports (money to high school athletic programs, the shenanigans in college recruiting) has developed a thick skin about this.

But I still think that *most* sponsors, particularly if their core business is not athletics, would care (Chipotle, RadioShack, Discovery Channel, Motorola, US Postal Service).

How do you think Quiznos feels tonight -- press conference w/Lance this afternoon about the return of a pro Grand Tour to Colorado; more allegations of Lance doping on the sports pages tomorrow?

i wonder how skateboarders enhance performance.

BengeBoy, you're from Seattle. Admit it. You're an innocent. ;)

"But I still think that *most* sponsors, particularly if their core business is not athletics, would care (Chipotle, RadioShack, Discovery Channel, Motorola, US Postal Service)."

I'm sticking by my jaded Los Angeles attitude: if any of those named sponsors made money off of Lance's name – and the did – then the earning of "monies and prizes" by Lance served only to enrich, and not defraud, those companies, even if he did dope. Those sponsors don't feel defrauded, they feel enriched.

"How do you think Quiznos feels tonight"

How did Quiznos feel in May, when Landis threw his bomb? How did Quiznos feel when the news broke that Lance was being investigated? Obviously the return on their investment was and is, for now, worth the risk that Lance's reputation might be permanently besmirched. That goes for the governor of Colorado, who must think the association with Armstrong, at least for now, is worth the risk of being tainted later by association. Otherwise, they would have pulled back from their association with Armstrong, and that press conference would not have been held.

Quiznos and the Gov. don't feel they have been defrauded, not in an L.A. minute.

Quiznos....don't feel they have been defrauded, not in an L.A. minute.

OK, I'm going to stop pretending I understand how fast-food chains spend their money.


http://i34.tinypic.com/107ug5e.jpg

I was once responsible for handling PR, as part of my other duties, for a major bank overseas. I was schooled by our outside consultants in many important ways regarding using "celebrities" in marketing campaigns and programs. It is very unethical out there. The overiding feeling I got was that managers and owners in public companies almost always have different goals. And these goals can be profoundly divergent.

Managers will hire the devil himself to pitch the product/company, provided they can hide him behind some mask and also guarantee themselves plausible deniability when things blow up. Shareholders want their gift to keep on giving, hence they are a little more scrupulous about hiring do**** bags as spokesperson/pitchmen.

So, to answer some questions. Trek most likely knew what was going on. And when the time comes, they'll throw the man under the bus, if they have to. This is part of the reason they settled the Lemond lawsuit in my opinion. But methinks Lemond settled for peanuts.

That stupid Justice Department, doin' it's job. Prosecutin' cases. What's up with that? How could American tax payers possibly benefit from the investigation of possible defrauding of the US government (and therefore, um, tax payers) by a sports company? I don't think the government should be in the business of collecting damages from said crimes, nor attempting to deter future acts of fraud! I demand my money back!

No. You will not be gettting any of your money back. However, Uncle Sam will be spending plenty more of it, while this highly important investigation takes place. Thank you in advance for your contribution.

Armstrong = no credibility

With more and more former teammates, team employees, and others coming out to testify under oath supporting Landis' claim, who do you think has the least amount of credibility. That's right. Armstrong.

BengeBoy wrote:

"Sponsors want to be associated with winners, but only winners who "play fair" by the rules of the sport that they are in. No big brand wants to give money to a team that wins but then is subsequently found to have cheated."

A good point. But then, the people in charge of the companies that are sponsors of people like Lance Armstrong knew - just as you did - that people like Lance Armstrong doped. These sponsors were more than happy to turn a blind eye to situation, and keep on with their sponsorships, even as rider after rider after rider was caught doping or admitted to having doped.

Admittedly, I dropped out of law school after just one semester, but it doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that the only people who are going to feel defrauded out of something are U.S. attorneys, should they ever bring a prosecution and lose.

While sponsors (who could just as well be called investors) might be saddened to learn that the potential gravy train is over when it's discovered that an athlete doped, don't imagine they feel defrauded. No, the sponsors feel enriched.

Sponsors invest in an athlete to earn a return. Therefore, the CEO of Nike won't thump his forehead, shout out "Doh! I was SO stupid" and sue Lance Armstrong, if he's ever found guilty of a crime, demanding his company's money back, anymore than the sponsors of Tiger Woods have felt cheated because Woods cheated on his wife.

Frankly, Nike didn't care if Armstrong used steroids, EPO, or black magic to win bike races. Nike and the other sponsors only cared that he win his races....and didn't get caught doping. Therefore, while the sponsors are sick that the gravy train might be over, they are not sick that Lance Armstrong doped. It's not the doping that bothers sponsors, it's that the law is sticking its nose in a place the sponsors don't want it. They'd like to chop off that nose.

And that is why the sponsors of Lance Armstrong were not defrauded. They got exactly what they wanted, a good return on their investment, even as they knew the risks involved.

As for Trek, the company has admitted having suspicions about the inappropriate sale of their bikes. Is Trek sorry NOW? You bet. Was Trek worried enough BEFORE to drop its sponsorship? Absolutely not. Trek admitted it knew what was happening with its bikes, but it turned a blind eye.

So Trek didn't feel defrauded BEFORE an investigation began, even though it was aware of shenanigans. Trek was very happy with the arrangement. It's only NOW that Trek is worried, but not about the return on their investment. They ARE worried because it's been revealed that higher-ups in the company had some direct knowledge of what was going on.

If Lance were to be convicted of something, Nike and Trek, etc., aren't going to come out with commercials apologizing for their association with him, anymore than Tiger Woods' sponsors have released mea culpas for erroneously believing in the integrity of the world's number one golfer.

To sum up: sponsors knew what they were getting into, and in the case of Armstrong, have made huge returns on their investment that cannot be negated by anything that happens in the future. That is why no fraud took place.

However, if Armstrong had consistently been a poor performer after garnering contracts from sponsors like Nike and Trek, and had those sponsors learned that Armstrong was earning less "monies and prizes" because he hadn't been doping, THEN those sponsors would believe they had been defrauded.

That's just simply not true. Look at the public debate that occurred over which popular baseball stars took steroids (my guy? No way). The same occurs regularly with Armstrong on this forums. Legions of fans will line up in a thread to say no way he used PEDs. This highlights the Livestrong dilemma. The simple fact is Lance Armstrong is bigger than American cycling. He's easily the only pro athlete with more fans than are fans of his sport. He's a rock star. If Lance had built Livestrong on the strength of his survival alone it would be pretty remarkable, and really an inspiring story in it's own right. It wasn't though. Livestrong was built on the myth that Lance is superhuman and he won 7 Tours. The superhuman (bigger lungs, larger physical heart) aspects are regularly debunked. I never really understood why his people supported the circulation of those things.

Now the idea that the playing field was level is now trotted out as a reason why he shouldn't be investigated. But how does any one know the playing field is level, even if every one was on PEDs? Cycling has several key components that are all reviewable: 1) team 2) equipment 3) training methods 4) heart/spirit 5) tactics. But when we throw doping in as a sixth we don't know who is using what, and honestly given Armstrong's dedication to having and being associated with the best does anyone really dispute that in a doping culture he'd have the best of the best. That, obviously, isn't to say he's worse than everyone else because he may have had a more successful program, but it does question the idea of the level playing field.

So what of the legions of folks and companies that supported livestrong? Despite what a noble mission they may have would all those folks have bought and worn yellow bracelets and said "well they all do drugs." Senator Kerry wore one during his campaign...do you think he'd do that and say "Armstrong's comeback from cancer is remarkable. All those athletes use PEDs of course." Does any one really believe he'd have the ear of Presidents, CEOs, A list celebrities, and foreign dignitaries if they all knew this is the way the sport works?

This unnamed rider would have to be American (else why bother even talking to American officials?), and the only US Postal one that comes to mind is ... Hincapie. I sure hope not.

Zabriskie, Andreau, Danielson, Leipheimer, Hincapie, McCarty, Casey, Clinger, Cruz, Creed, Hamilton, Gerlach, Gragus, Hampsten, Jemison, Livingston, Vandevelde, Vaughters.

All were US members of the assorted Postal and/or Discovery teams from '96 to '04.

Could be anyone of that list.

SB

Is this really the best use of tax payer money right now?

No

Zabriskie, Andreau, Danielson, Leipheimer, Hincapie, McCarty, Casey, Clinger, Cruz, Creed, Hamilton, Gerlach, Gragus, Hampsten, Jemison, Livingston, Vandevelde, Vaughters.

All were US members of the assorted Postal and/or Discovery teams from '96 to '04.

Could be anyone of that list.

SB

Great list! Darren Baker was also on the team in 1996.

Is this really the best use of tax payer money right now?

The problem is the effect the culture of doping in professional sports has on others.

If well compensated adult professional athletes choose to dope, and put their health at risk, that's pretty much their problem.

But it doesn't end there, it has a direct effect on kids competing at an Amateur level.

If you simply turn a blind eye to illegal use of PED's in sports, it sends a very bad message to kids.

And would you want your child to be a professional cyclist, knowing that if your child had the talent to compete at that level it would require them to use illegal and dangerous PED's, and if they elected not to do so that would pretty much end their chances?

Moreover, the argument "we have better things to spend money on" if accepted would mean that we could never address any problem, other than say solving world hunger, because keeping people from starving to death will always be more compelling than most any other cause.

Fortunately the Federal Government has the capicity to pursue more than one issue at a time, and the few houndred thoudsand dollars spent on this, isn't going to stop them from addressing other issues.

The problem is the effect the culture of doping in professional sports has on others.

If well compensated adult professional athletes choose to dope, and put their health at risk, that's pretty much their problem.

But it doesn't end there, it has a direct effect on kids competing at an Amateur level.

If you simply turn a blind eye to illegal use of PED's in sports, it sends a very bad message to kids.

And would you want your child to be a professional cyclist, knowing that if your child had the talent to compete at that level it would require them to use illegal and dangerous PED's, and if they elected not to do so that would pretty much end their chances?

Moreover, the argument "we have better things to spend money on" if accepted would mean that we could never address any problem, other than say solving world hunger, because keeping people from starving to death will always be more compelling than most any other cause.

Fortunately the Federal Government has the capicity to pursue more than one issue at a time, and the few houndred thoudsand dollars spent on this, isn't going to stop them from addressing other issues.

I don't think kids are going to give a rat's ass if the pros do it or not, or if the pros get busted. And in fact, I think it will have a negative effect. Kids are smart enough to know they want something that the pros can't have, and that it must be good stuff if the pros can't have it.

I don't think half the population is high because of Willie and Snoop. I don't think anyone is going to stop getting high if we toss Willie and Snoop in jail for it.

Thats a pretty novel theory; PED usage trickling up as opposed to down.

Great list! Darren Baker was also on the team in 1996.

but lance wasn't.

most likely the hot sauce program went into full effect in '99, after big tex had johnny weltz removed from the team.

I'd like to issue a challenge to everyone on this thread. If the latest investigation finds Lance guilty of doping and lying, then we can all agree he lied and was a fraud, all of the Lance fanboys and girls will have to admit they were wrong for trusting his word. If the investigation finds no guilt, then all of the haters have to STFU and apologise for wrongfully accusing him of using PED's.

Unfortunately, I doubt the second half of the scenario above will ever happen. If Lance is found innocent of wrongdoing, the same D-bags on this site who are convinced of his guilt (without any real proof) will merely say, "he beat them again" or say that he was just good at cheating. The same tossers will be first to say "I told you so", if he is found guilty will be the ones that say "this means nothing" if he is found innocent. The only outcome they will accept is a guilty one. This is a classic witch hunt.

If Lance is found guilty, I will support whatever punishment he receives-including prison time, fines and erasing all of his records. If he is innocent of these allegations, after the investigation, people like Lanidis and fatboy Lemond need to STFU and go away forever, and take the army of jerkoffs - who post every piece of anti-Lance heresay they can find on the net - with them.


Cheers,

Biscuit

Who cares, doesn't the US goverment have better things to do?

I want to know what this cost? We the tax payer pay for this foolish stuff.

The simple fact is Lance Armstrong is bigger than American cycling. He's easily the only pro athlete with more fans than are fans of his sport. He's a rock star.

Data point.

The local mall sports store SportCheck has a 4-window wide Lance/Livestrong poster across it. It takes up the entirety of their mall window space. Inside the store, there is a big display showing the new Nike Livestrong shoes. There's also a big display of Livestrong clothing, including bike jerseys (real deal with the back pockets) and FULL (shorts too) RadioShack team kit.

Perhaps more interesting is there are now four racks of actual cycling clothes in the store - 2 male, 2 female; a mix of Sugoi and Louis Garneau. Prior to this, the only places to buy real cycling stuff in town was a bike shop; now you can buy shorts with a chamois in the mall.

This has a feel of a trial run - the clothes themselves are a smattering of different styles. But cycling arm warmers in the mall? Unheard of.

Love him or hate him, Lance and Livestrong are the thin edge of the wedge.

DG

No. You will not be gettting any of your money back. However, Uncle Sam will be spending plenty more of it, while this highly important investigation takes place. Thank you in advance for your contribution.

Obviously the sarcasm was all too much. Here's the point: the Justice Department's job is to prosecute cases. Their job is not to put a referendum out saying, "Hey, US citizens, tell us what is and isn't worth our time and money!" They prosecute cases of this nature ALL THE TIME. Dragging out the "waste of taxpayer money" is a pretty transparent attempt to spin this as a trivial matter, by Lance and Lance supporters. The reality is that, whether it be on this case or some other, Novitsky is going to draw a paycheck, one way or the other.

And of course, on top of that, this is a drop in the bucket. If the issue is wasting taxpayer money, I can think of a few hundred things that would probably come before this investigation. Like I said - spin, not a meaningful criticism of a Justice Department that is doing what it's supposed to do, which is in part to investigate federal crimes against the US and citizens thereof.

Personally I propose a new drinking game. Every time someone starts a "Lance doped!" thread you have to take a shot. :thumb:

-Marcos

P.S. On slow days "Trek vs. other bike" threads will also count. Haha

gsteinb wrote:

"So what of the legions of folks and companies that supported livestrong? Despite what a noble mission they may have [,] would all those folks have bought and worn yellow bracelets and said "well they all do drugs."

That's not got nothing to do, gsteinb, with my contention that Lance's sponsors were not defrauded. They all got something from their association with Armstrong, whether or not he doped.

Here is the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "defraud": "to deprive of something by deception or fraud"

Nike, Trek, etc., were deprived of what? Of money from that sponsorship? Hardly. The "monies and prizes" Armstrong won, whether he doped or not, brought in huge amounts of EXTRA money to his sponsors, money Nike and Trek, etc. would not have made just selling shoes and bikes.

Let's not stop with one definition, let's look at the concept of "fraud": "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value"

What of value have the sponsors been parted from? Had Lance NOT doped and NOT won (assuming for the moment he did), then the sponsors would have benefited but poorly in the one way they wanted to benefit, monetarily.

Therefore, I'm sticking with my claim that no one has been defrauded - at least not the sponsors. And I'll go farther and say that Presidents, clebrities, and foreign dignitaries have not been defrauded, either.

Senator Kerry is out what, a $1, for his wrist band? He got way more than his money's worth on the exchange. It's the same for the others. They gained something from the association, more than any loss if it is proven that Armstrong doped.

No one now will look at Kerry, unless they already don't like him, and will say to themselves and their friends and relatives and co-workers, 'Hey, that boob Kerry! Yeah, you know, the Senator from, uh, where? What a dufus! HE wore a yellow wrist band. No WAY I'm voting for him next time."

But let's face reality here: Armstrong won't be prosecuted because Senator Kerry or Cheryl Crowe wore a yellow wristband, or because George Bush spun mt. bike wheels with Lance.

And, as I pointed out with Trek, the company insiders have admitted they KNEW something was rotten with the sale of their bikes, yet because they were making a lot of money off their association with Armstrong and his teams, they turned a blind eye.

To recap, gsteinb, you seem to have missed the point of my post: sponsors were not defrauded by Armstrong having (presumably) doped. On the contrary, rather than having been deprived of something by Armstrong, he delivered the goods.

Armstrong didn't cause sponsors or anyone else to part with something of value, Armstrong ADDED value, the specific kind of value those sponsors wanted: monetary value. Nike and Trek and Quiznos and all the others made far more money – not less – off their sponsorships than they paid out to Armstrong.

Did Quizno feel defrauded enough to call off their press conference yesterday playing up their association with Armstrong? No.

the army of jerkoffs - who post every piece of anti-Lance heresay they can find on the net -t

I guess you are referring to me -- since I started this thread -- I just wanted to say I don't appreciate being called a jerkoff.

The investigation into Lance is a big deal for cycling. No matter what you think of the investigation, his critics, or the Feds. The "news" today is that other riders beyond Landis appear to be corroborating the story. That matters to our sport. I posted it because cycling news is part of this forum and our community.

If you're so into apologies, you can start by apologizing to me.

That matters to our sport.

So, just out of curiosity, what do you think will happen if Lance is charged? What are the long term benefits?

I didn't miss the point of your post, though you seem to have missed the point of mine. Clearly it was not publicly known or accepted that peds were used in the way they may have been. Whether that is the nature of the fraud case or if that sticks to the wall remains to be seen. I don't have any inside knowledge of the case, and I'm unaware of anyone who does.

Icyclist -

I think gsteinb's point was not that Kerry or Bush were defrauded, but rather that their association with LA would not have occurred if they knew he was doping AND that this says something about the value LA's sponsors believed they were getting from their association with LA.

So - the fraud occurs because sponsors were made to believe they were getting a product (a clean an winning lance armstrong) that they were not, in fact, getting. Whether this amounts to a fraud or not depends on specific facts, but that is the gist of the argument, I believe.

The irony here is that, without a doubt, everyone from sponsors to politicos and celebrities were at least willfully blind to whether LA was doping!