Professional Cycling For the Fans - The real cost of bringing down Armstrong

Is detailed here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/sports/cycling/22armstrong.html?_r=1&hp).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

If I was Lance I'd use a line from Bob Knight..."When I die I want to be buried face down so you can all kiss my ass."

Feed the warrior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTcfRpnH1A

anybody who doped took money out of the pockets of those that didn't.

anybody who doped took money out of the pockets of those that didn't.

Well that works, since virtually everybody in the pro peloton was doped in the Lance era.

anybody who doped took money out of the pockets of those that didn't.


fail

People do love drama.

Well that works, since virtually everybody in the pro peloton was doped in the Lance era.

I just assumed he was talking about non-pro cyclists.

Any way you look at this situation it's complicated. Armstrong's charitable works don't excuse any potential doping offenses of course, but it does mean the fallout from any case against him has a far more widespread impact than a case against an athlete like Bonds or Clemens. The Feds seem aware of this, and indeed, they really do want to make sure they have a slam dunk case against Mr. Armstrong for a number of reasons.

Why does Floyd always look so dopey in his article accompanying pictures? He should send out some snazzy new headshots.

Why does Floyd always look so dopey in his article accompanying pictures? He should send out some snazzy new headshots.

Floyd just happens to be a rather dopey looking dude. Can't hold that against him.

They tested his ass so many times over so many years and nada. Over and over and over. Hell they showed up and tested him when Kik was ready to give birth. "Sorry, you can't go to the hospital..."

They all need to STFU.

If I get started on "the feds" we'll end up in the political forum.

Ibtm

Did they even have an effective test for blood doping (i.e. transfusing your own blood back into your own body) in those years?

Floyd just happens to be a rather dopey looking dude. Can't hold that against him.

What I can hold against him is he swore up and down he was clean. Won the Tour. Spent a fortune, cost him his marriage, and basically his lifestyle.

Now he's telling the truth. Right.

Geez I hate people like that. We you lying then, or are you lying now? How can we tell when you are lying and when you aren't?

Floyd just happens to be a rather dopey looking dude. Can't hold that against him.

I think it comes from his Amish background.
Ever notice there aren't any Amish actors, actresses, or supermodels?

What I can hold against him is he swore up and down he was clean. Won the Tour. Spent a fortune, cost him his marriage, and basically his lifestyle.

Now he's telling the truth. Right.

Geez I hate people like that. We you lying then, or are you lying now? How can we tell when you are lying and when you aren't?

Floyd has more credibility with me now than ever, and I don't think I'm alone. I do realize that is a total disconnect, and that he really has no legitimate credibility, but it was enough to get the Feds moving on the case. So it goes.

That being said I fully agree with RW, this is a total waste and misdirection of taxpayer resources. And I agree with RW that Floyd is a complete and utter scumbag, even if he is telling the truth now. As he rightly points out, it's impossible to know which Floyd version of the 'truth' to believe.

Aww, come on.

If someone doesn't tear Armstrong down, no one would be able to make smug posts about how he "cheated".

Hey, let's go after Eddie Merckx next. He's still alive. Merckx was DQ'd twice because he got caught using PEDs - which is two more than the number of times Armstrong has been caught.

Did they even have an effective test for blood doping (i.e. transfusing your own blood back into your own body) in those years?

EPO tests came on line about 1999. Of course they've evolved over time. When EPO was getting sexy (an old racing buddy of mine's son died last year, racing bikes, from a mis-dosed EPO deal, died in his sleep) then blood transfusing came back. The test for that basically looks at 15 antigens and can detect small amounts of transfused blood. But blood transfusing has been around a really long time. It's been done in all endurance sports...marathoning for example. The latest generation of this test was what caught Hamilton. Understand that Armstrong was still racing in 2004 when this particular test was coming on-line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

If I was Lance I'd use a line from Bob Knight..."When I die I want to be buried face down so you can all kiss my ass."

Feed the warrior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTcfRpnH1A

Bob Knight is an interesting comparison. A supreme and talented competitor, surrounded by apologists and yes men, and often the victim of his own hubris.

Of course Armstrong doped. So did everyone else, and I mean everyone, if we're talking about GC contenders in the GTs. That has been true for ever - since before PEDS were illegal. All the greats took amphetamine back in the day, when that and booze were just about all that was available. And the question of what is cheating changes as the years pass, and new stuff comes out, and is used until it is both outlawed and can be detected. If anyone wants a level playing field, the only way they're going to get it is by simply abandoning the rules against doping.

So the question is, should Armstrong be pursued any more or less vigorously than anyone else? He's won the Tour seven times while vehemently protesting his innocence, so it is certainly a matter of some interest. And presumably nobody is saying that because he has founded a charitable enterprise he should be exempt?

Any way you look at this situation it's complicated. Armstrong's charitable works don't excuse any potential doping offenses of course, but it does mean the fallout from any case against him has a far more widespread impact than a case against an athlete like Bonds or Clemens. The Feds seem aware of this, and indeed, they really do want to make sure they have a slam dunk case against Mr. Armstrong for a number of reasons.

From what I can see this US Attorney seems like a Ken Star wannabe . I mean hes been going after Bonds for years and hasnt even been able to get his case to trial. I doubt very much he will worry about things like having an slam dunk case against LA . The man seems obsessed. As far as Im concerned the best way to handle him would be to get rid of him. The mans been around for years under both Rs and Ds . I mean send him out to private practice so he can see whats its like to waste time and resources on a crap 10 year old case.

After all the umpteen Armstrong threads, I am sure this one will generate a lot of new and thought-provoking ideas.

V.

You miss the point.

I've already learned a lot. If it doesn't fit you must acquit.

I couldn't care less about livestrong. There are better performing (from a financial standpoint) cancer charities to give money to anyway. If it goes away, the money will go elsewhere.

And if it doesn't... whatever. As a society, we don't really care about health. If we did, we wouldn't allow corporate interests to poison every aspect of our lives. Instead, we encourage it.

I am sick of the Lance bashing, get over it.

I couldn't care less about livestrong. There are better performing (from a financial standpoint) cancer charities to give money to anyway. If it goes away, the money will go elsewhere.

And if it doesn't... whatever. As a society, we don't really care about health. If we did, we wouldn't allow corporate interests to poison every aspect of our lives. Instead, we encourage it.

About 95% per cent of that which goes into the average Americans mouth disguised as food comes from big corps. 100 years ago that figure was less than 5% . Is there any question why the cancer rate has shot up so much even with all the money thrown at it for research?

Is detailed here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/sports/cycling/22armstrong.html?_r=1&hp).

I was hoping for a $ amount. So how much is it?

I was hoping for a $ amount. So how much is it?

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Austin_Powers/mike_myers_as_dr_evil_in_austin_powers.jpg

Did they even have an effective test for blood doping (i.e. transfusing your own blood back into your own body) in those years?
Yes, the American Olympic gymnastic team used to take the procedure in full view during competition and was the subject of a crackdown and subsequently testing becoming de rigeur. 76' or 80' I forget which but possibly the year the commie German women's team decided to sport beards and announce the death of their wombs. Regardless, cancer, the focus of his charity is pretty well dependent on a fair number of drugs that force recovery and rebuilding. It also stands noting that recovering from such debilitation as he suffered is called getting a new lease on life for very literal reasons. By no stretch of the imagination does it not build up a backlog of pain tolerance that can drive the mind for a good number of years to expend. The chances of more time being spent on unfair advantages in his bike frame seem much likely than his bodies frame to me.

Given the unknown effects of zero calorie foods and drinks and his sponsorship by a beer that is unnaturally light perhaps food science is an arena that is currently untestable and beneficial in ways not publicized. Really the whole thing is speculative at this time and if he wants to get a chilled fructose enema with his rich buddies I sure as hell don't want graphic illustration of its effect being forced on me by the media.

They tested his ass so many times over so many years and nada. Over and over and over. Hell they showed up and tested him when Kik was ready to give birth. "Sorry, you can't go to the hospital..."

They all need to STFU.

If I get started on "the feds" we'll end up in the political forum.

Floyd Landis denied all allegations of doping for many years. He was almost believable. Then when he suddenly admits to it, he wants to bring everyone down with him. This is BTW after the Radio Shack team turned him down for the 2010 TDF. Definitely someone with an axe to grind. What's even worse is why LeMond keeps trying to bring down Lance when he himself has no proof, and didn't even see Lance doping. WTF? Now we've got a Federal Prosecutor trying to make a name for himself.

Geezus just let it go. It's 2010. The line between performance enhancing drugs and drugs with true medicinal purposes is so blurred, and oftentimes so thin, it's hard to distinguish. On top of that, Lance has been tested so many times and has always passed. What more will they need to investigate? It's all hearsay with no positive evidence. I feel that too many people in this case have their own private agendas, none of which is there to serve the public good.

I was hoping for a $ amount. So how much is it?

You can't measure the full impact in fiscal terms. It really goes beyond that. It's complicated.

If we did, we wouldn't allow corporate interests to poison every aspect of our lives. Instead, we encourage it.

Shhhhh.

Kind of weird how the writer keeps saying "mr.", feels amateurish for some reason...other than that, interesting article.

Kind of weird how the writer keeps saying "mr.", feels amateurish for some reason...other than that, interesting article.

Mr. Pcad cannot concur.

You can't measure the full impact in fiscal terms. It really goes beyond that. It's complicated.

Not only to cancer support, but Lance has had a huge impact on the sales of Road Bikes. The number is huge.

The article is a joke. Author is implying that any wealthy patron should be immune from conviction or even investigation since their philanthropic efforts might be undermined.

Lance is a cheater. Everyone knows it. So is Michael Jordan. It's well documented. Same is true for A-Rod, Clemens, Bonds, the list just goes on and on.

btw, Brock Lesnar has never failed a drug test. Therefore, we can all assume he's never taken steroids:

http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/brock-lesnar1.jpg

Kind of weird how the writer keeps saying "mr.", feels amateurish for some reason...other than that, interesting article.

Part of the New York Times style manual.

Lance is a cheater.

WOW. You should talk to the agents who are investigating the matter. It seems that you know something the rest of us don't.

They tested his ass so many times over so many years and nada. Over and over and over. Hell they showed up and tested him when Kik was ready to give birth. "Sorry, you can't go to the hospital..."

They all need to STFU.

If I get started on "the feds" we'll end up in the political forum.

I guess you don't understand the limitations of testing, and the methodolgy to get around the tests.

The article is a joke. Author is implying that any wealthy patron should be immune from conviction or even investigation since their philanthropic efforts might be undermined.

Lance is a cheater. Everyone knows it. So is Michael Jordan. It's well documented. Same is true for A-Rod, Clemens, Bonds, the list just goes on and on.

btw, Brock Lesnar has never failed a drug test. Therefore, we can all assume he's never taken steroids:

http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/brock-lesnar1.jpg

Wow.

I think it comes from his Amish background.
Ever notice there aren't any Amish actors, actresses, or supermodels?
It is against Amish religion to have your photograph (i.e. picture, video,) taken. Not that I care, just a Pennsylvania Dutch side note.

Trying to bring down Lance is akin to telling your spouse years after the fact that they're not really the true parent of your child. Sure, you COULD tell them, maybe it's even the "right" thing to do, but in the end, it will do way more harm than good. Why go there?

And also, in the very end, what difference does a positive investigation result make? Vindication for the whistle blowers? A lot of "I told you so"s? Yay. Great. You told us so. Because we were all so so very confused and in the dark about cycling and doping. Thank you for opening our eyes.

I hope that the investigation goes nowhere.

I couldn't care less about livestrong. There are better performing (from a financial standpoint) cancer charities to give money to anyway. If it goes away, the money will go elsewhere.

And if it doesn't... whatever. As a society, we don't really care about health. If we did, we wouldn't allow corporate interests to poison every aspect of our lives. Instead, we encourage it.

Maybe if you had cancer and Livestrong was of help, then just perhaps you would care...now wouldn't you?

When this is all said and done, I won't be satisfied unless and until Floyd is officially recognized as a legitimate tour winner, who's win was among the most enthralling. As far as I'm concerned, his failings pale in comparison to the evil genius that is Lance.

I couldn't care less about livestrong. There are better performing (from a financial standpoint) cancer charities to give money to anyway. If it goes away, the money will go elsewhere.

And if it doesn't... whatever. As a society, we don't really care about health. If we did, we wouldn't allow corporate interests to poison every aspect of our lives. Instead, we encourage it.

Oh you mean like the worst financially run large charity according to Forbes Magazine. Oh, that would be the American Cancer Society.

I guess you don't understand the limitations of testing, and the methodolgy to get around the tests.

You ever raced a bike for a paycheck and been tested?

I have.

Floyd Landis denied all allegations of doping for many years. He was almost believable. Then when he suddenly admits to it, he wants to bring everyone down with him. This is BTW after the Radio Shack team turned him down for the 2010 TDF. Definitely someone with an axe to grind. What's even worse is why LeMond keeps trying to bring down Lance when he himself has no proof, and didn't even see Lance doping. WTF? Now we've got a Federal Prosecutor trying to make a name for himself.

Geezus just let it go. It's 2010. The line between performance enhancing drugs and drugs with true medicinal purposes is so blurred, and oftentimes so thin, it's hard to distinguish. On top of that, Lance has been tested so many times and has always passed. What more will they need to investigate? It's all hearsay with no positive evidence. I feel that too many people in this case have their own private agendas, none of which is there to serve the public good.

Yep.

The article is a joke. Author is implying that any wealthy patron should be immune from conviction or even investigation since their philanthropic efforts might be undermined.


Your analysis is a joke. The article simply describes the potential fallout from this investigation. The sad thing is that even if they fail to win a conviction, they could derail Armstrong's reputation and the Livestrong organization. And who would that help?

Oh you mean like the worst financially run large charity according to Forbes Magazine. Oh, that would be the American Cancer Society.

According the charity navigator they're pretty closely rated

Lance Armstrong Foundation - TX 53.40
American Cancer Society - GA 52.84

Here are some others
Children's Cancer Center - FL 59.62
Cancer Recovery Foundation of America - PA 58.72
International Myeloma Foundation - CA 61.34
The V Foundation - NC 69.30