"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Armstrong weasles out of the Giro

I have been wondering how Armstrong would weasles out of the Giro d'Italia. Easy: blame a little guy with the help of a big guy. Here't the story from cyclingnews.com:

Verbruggen: Simeoni stopping Armstrong riding Giro
'The' incident
Photo ©: Roberto Bettini
UCI president Hein Verbruggen has said that Lance Armstrong is not riding this year's Giro d'Italia because of the dispute between him and Filippo Simeoni. In an interview with La Gazzetta dello Sport, Verbruggen said, "Without the Simeoni affair, [Armstrong] certainly would have come to the Giro, he had promised me."

Verbruggen added that Armstrong's actions during the 18th stage of the 2004 Tour de France, where he followed Simeoni up to a breakaway and effectively killed the Italian's chances of getting clear, "did not deserve a penalty." A judicial investigation was opened in Italy after the incident, trying to determine whether Armstrong had threatened Simeoni, and whether he could be charged with sporting fraud, violence and intimidation of a witness. Thus, Armstrong could be questioned by police if he sets foot in Italy.

Armstrong and Simeoni are involved in another legal battle arising from Simeoni's testimony in the Dr. Ferrari trial, where Simeoni claimed that Dr. Ferrari had instructed him on taking doping products. Armstrong called Simeoni a "liar" after this, and Simeoni is now suing Armstrong for libel.

Just amazing! Lance's treatment of Simeoni stank last summer, and now Lance uses his bullying of a little guy as an excuse to stay out of a country that's tough on doping. It's amazing what you can get away with when you have the head of the UCI and the president of the USA on your buddy list. Not wanting to set foot in Italy reminds me of Raimundas Rumsas (remember him?) avoiding going back to France. Is Armstrong just chicken or does he have something to hide?

BOY... MAKes Me Hate Armstrong's GUTS!!!!!


Not.

Until they have solid physical evidence that he's a doper, get over it.

It is exactly because of the way that Rumsas (both Raimondas and his wife) were treated by French authorities that Armstrong would be well advised to be cautious of going in to Italy. I'm no expert on Italian law, but he'd be a fool to go if there is a chance of him being detained due to the charges of "sporting fraud, violence and intimidation of a witness". Some of those allegations seem to be much more nebulous than being caught with a trunk load of performance enhancing drugs in your car. I'm still trying to figure out the violence charge, as I do not remember hearing of Armstrong physically contacting Simeoni. Even if you are innocent until proven guilty, it can take a while until the wheels of justice turn, and the Italian legal system is not particularly known for it's expediency. Why should Armstrong give some hot shot prosecutors the opportunity to get their own names in the headlines by detaining him?

Although I think Armstrong's antics with chasing down Simeoni were a grade A bonehead move, I agree with ultra-g: Armstrong is innocent until proven guilty. Not alleged to be, not rumored to be, not claimed to be a doper by some journalist trying to make a buck or some pundit who has probably never even met Armstrong.

(Edit: By the way, that last comment about a pundit is not aimed at figaro personally. I just find it amazing how many people are convinced that Armstrong, Hamilton, insert the name of your favorite racer here__________ either is or is not a doper, when they've probably never met the person in question.)

The Italian authorities opened a CRIMINAL investigation of Armstrong because of something he said to an Italian rider in a race in France. Where did the Italian police get the idea they have jurisdiction over something that happened outside of Italy? And when did a conversation become a crime?

Who knows why Armstrong enters or does not enter a race? But, the re-emergence of fascist police tactics in Italy is not going to make the Giro more attractive to any riders.

The Italian authorities opened a CRIMINAL investigation of Armstrong because of something he said to an Italian rider in a race in France. Where did the Italian police get the idea they have jurisdiction over something that happened outside of Italy? And when did a conversation become a crime?

Who knows why Armstrong enters or does not enter a race? But, the re-emergence of fascist police tactics in Italy is not going to make the Giro more attractive to any riders.

The Italians want an Italian to win the Giro - its' really that simple. They certainly do not want the added competition of a fast American in the peloton. Armstrong will never race the Giro now. Unfortunately, the cycling fan is the one who has really lost out in this deal.

I would guess that if Simoni, Cunego, or Basso chased down a break (regardless as to the reason), they would not have an issue with the Italian police now. :rolleyes:

Given the probability that some hot shot prosecutor
could get big press (and not piss off the italians
by arresting an Italian or miafoso) by detaining Lance.
While I agree that stage 18 was a stupid move
(albeit it did work) I too think it would be foolish
for Lance to go to Italy.
Given that he was in italy last year, scouting the mortirola (sp?)
and other possible routes I'd say he was going thinking seriously
about riding the Giro.

Marty

The Italian authorities opened a CRIMINAL investigation of Armstrong because of something he said to an Italian rider in a race in France. Where did the Italian police get the idea they have jurisdiction over something that happened outside of Italy? And when did a conversation become a crime?

Who knows why Armstrong enters or does not enter a race? But, the re-emergence of fascist police tactics in Italy is not going to make the Giro more attractive to any riders.


I am stunned...we agree... :D


BTW, having lived in Europe, they do not have the same legal approach as we do...good or bad the location of the incident has nada to do with their "involvement"...
But then they can search a rider's room in the middle of the night without probable cause or a warrant. And that's only the beginning.

I guess no German tourists are allowed either then. Can you imagine how much more threatening they must have sounded on Alp Duez?

--- __0 __0 __0
----_-\<,_ -\<,
_(_)(_)/_(_)/ (_)

What exactly happened on stage 18?

What exactly happened on stage 18?

Several riders, including Simioni, who were no threat to the GC were in a break when Sir Armstrong decided to chase down the break, effectively ruining the day for everyone involved.. When he got up to the leading group he said something to Simioni. What he said and how he said it is open to debate.

this whole thing with Simeoni is so ridiculous. Could you imagine another sport where someone complained because someone who didn't like him kept him from winning leads to criminal charges. "Bad Ray Lewis, how dare you sack that quarterback just because he is suing you!" "In other news, Barry Bonds was arrested today for catching a fly ball that sealed the defeat of his opponent. The opponent complained because he had come out against Barry Bonds using steroids and Barry was suing him for libel. 'They already had a playoff spot locked up and we are no threat to even enter the post season, so he should have just let us win. He just doesn't like me. When he went back to the dugout he gave me a mean look and said dirty words at me.' The FBI are investigating."

What lotek said.

And I'll add that Simeoni should have just kept riding stage 18 to win instead of letting Lance pull him back. It wouldn't have done Simeoni much good with the peloton, but he's black sheep as it is. Forcing Lance to stay out with his break would have harmed Lance more than Simeoni, we wouldn't have this silly harrassment suit, and Lance and Simeoni could renew their differences at the Giro.

Didn't like Lance chasing down Simeoni (or especially Ekimov's snot rocket during the final stage), but Simeoni should have left it on the road.

It's my understanding that Simeoni claims (don't know if there are any willing witnesses) that Lance threatened him professionally and economically when he caught up to the break. That's witness tampering whether it is in a sporting event or a darkened parking lot or in a hotel room. If you threaten a witness of a court case you are intending to influence their testimony, hence tampering with that witness.

In addition to harming his ability to make a living by threatening his position in the break, this quote is from an MSNBC article:

"Simeoni was quoted by Gazzetta as saying that while he rode with Armstrong, the Texan said, “You made a mistake to speak against Ferrari, and you made a mistake to take legal action against me. I have money and time and lots of lawyers. I can destroy you.”"

The Italians want an Italian to win the GiroNo less than the French want a Frenchman to win the Tour or the Spanish want a Spaniard to win the Vuelta. There's no shortage of American prosecutors who would have done the same had the nationalities been reversed and the races taking place in different, respective countries.

No less than the French want a Frenchman to win the Tour. There's no shortage of American prosecutors who would have done the same had the nationalities been reversed and the races taking place in different, respective countries.

Very true, but it doesn't make my statement false. :)

Then I'll disagree that on good terms at least(discarding the feud with Simeoni), Italians would relish having a six-time Tour winner ride in their Giro. Cycling fans will always pull for their nation's guy first, sure, but on the whole they respect talent regardless of country of origin. Witness the general love for Ullrich, Freire, Simoni, Basso, etc. from Americans on these forums. Italians are no different in that regard.

Yeah, Armstrong remains as fiercely loyal to Ferrari as some of you guys are to him................

Some of the national slurs hurled in this thread would never have been unchallenged, had the words "Italian" and French" been replaced by "American".

At least the French and Italians are making some moves against rampant drug abuse in sports, cycling being just one. Waiting for Verbruggen's UCI to self-regulate was a waste of time. Of course, UCI testers are more polite to the riders than policemen, with the evident outcomes.......

Hey, to hell with the future of the sport, so long as the stars and stripes are on top of the podium.........is that really what we want?

The whole Simeoni thing is a joke. Patrons have always dominated and policed the peloton in the way Armstrong did. Guys like Hinault and Van Looy would eat the lunches of riders that crossed them. There is no case to answer- and Verbruggen is an ass, for suggesting otherwise........

In this era of disinformation, we will never be told why Armstrong ducked the olympics and why he won't race the Giro. All that close season BS, about him giving the Tour a miss...........like winning a Classic, or the Giro would have enough cachet for the new sponsors.

There are those among us who loved the sport before Lemond and will do so after Armstrong. Quite what will be left of it's credibility at that point, who knows?

In addition to harming his ability to make a living by threatening his position in the break,


Simeoni's Palmares

1995 (CARRERA - TASSONI): NO VICTORIES
- 1996: (CARRERA): NO VICTORIES
- 1997: (ASICS): NO VICTORIES
- 1998: (ASICS): NO VICTORIES
- 1999: (RISO SCOTTI-VINAVIL): NO VICTORIES
- 2000: (AMICA CHIPS-TACCONI SPORT): 4 victories: (GP Civitanova Marche, 1 stage Tour of Luxembourg, 1 stage and Final Overall in Regio Tour)
- 2001: (CANTINA TOLLO - ACQUA E SAPONE): 1 win: 1 Vuelta Stage (Albacete-Cuenca)

2003 - Domina Vacanze
1 - Stage 19 Vuelta a España
2 - Florencia-Pistoia Ita
118 - Vuelta a España
2004
1 - Stage 5 Vuelta a Austria
2 - Stage 4 Settimana Ciclistica Internazionale Coppi-Bartali
3 - Stage 1 Settimana Ciclista Lombarda
118 - Tour de France


based on this career, I don't think Armstrong hurt is income to much by reeling him on a stage of the Tour. I mean, he has won a lot of stages there hasn't he. :rolleyes:

Believe me, I don't approve of what Armstrong did. It was unnecessary and unsportsmanlike. But the response to this is over the top. I understand that Cycling prides itself in being a "gentlemen's sport," but the greatest heros of its history are known as the cannibal and the badger for a reason.

I'd love it if anyone anywhere actually cared whether or not I rode or took it at all seriously whether or not I showed up anywhere.

Some of the national slurs hurled in this thread would never have been unchallenged, had the words "Italian" and French" been replaced by "American".



forgive me for being clueless, but where did someone do this?

It's my understanding that Simeoni claims (don't know if there are any willing witnesses) that Lance threatened him professionally and economically when he caught up to the break. That's witness tampering whether it is in a sporting event or a darkened parking lot or in a hotel room. If you threaten a witness of a court case you are intending to influence their testimony, hence tampering with that witness.

In addition to harming his ability to make a living by threatening his position in the break, this quote is from an MSNBC article:

"Simeoni was quoted by Gazzetta as saying that while he rode with Armstrong, the Texan said, “You made a mistake to speak against Ferrari, and you made a mistake to take legal action against me. I have money and time and lots of lawyers. I can destroy you.”"
Lets see, Simeoni has a case against Lance, Lance responds with the above and exactly how
does that equate to witness tampering.
If someone threatens a lawsuit,and I say I will destroy you in court is that witness tampering?
intimidation maybe, but not witness tampering.
The whole thing, the lawsuits, the smack down in stage 18, is incredibly childish.
both Lance and Simeoni need to get over it.

Flaneur, I too am baffled as to the first part of your post exactly what slurs do you mean?

Marty

The whole Simeoni thing is a joke. Patrons have always dominated and policed the peloton in the way Armstrong did. Guys like Hinault and Van Looy would eat the lunches of riders that crossed them.

Flaneur, I have yet to hear one credible, documented instance of a patron engaging in an act of intimidation comparable to this. The patron traditionally polices the peleton or other riders with regards to race tactics or race etiquette or acts as a voice of the riders in matters of rider interests. What Armstrong was doing was motivated entirely by self interest and was wholly unrelated to the interests of the peleton, unless one considers silencing someone blowing the whistle on doping "in the riders interests".

but the greatest heros of its history are known as the cannibal and the badger for a reason.

Whether Merckx and Hinault are the greatest heros of the sport of cycling is of course an individual choice, but the reasons for their being known as the cannibal and the badger respectively is because of their racing styles, not because of the way they treated their fellow competitors.

The Pro peloton contains a lot of pack fodder. Yeah, Lance kept this guy from "winning a stage"...a fella who has never even won a race to the outhouse. This fourth rate POS keeps suggesting that Lance wins because Lance cheats...based on who Lance knows. A honest racer is NOT going to tolerate being slandered, especially by a guy who was in the race only to carry water bottles for his team.

If someone accused me of cheating, the discussion would involve MUCH more than an exchange of words. Lance let the guy off easy. If YOU win a race, and the guy who finishes last calls YOU a cheater, you are just gonna SPEAK with the fella?

Flaneur, I have yet to hear one credible, documented instance of a patron engaging in an act of intimidation comparable to this. The patron traditionally polices the peleton or other riders with regards to race tactics or race etiquette or acts as a voice of the riders in matters of rider interests. What Armstrong was doing was motivated entirely by self interest and was wholly unrelated to the interests of the peleton, unless one considers silencing someone blowing the whistle on doping "in the riders interests".



Well said Don, well said....

Don, as you well know, Bernard Hinault was driven by self-interest, which was his primary motivation in controlling the affairs of the peloton. The 'altruistic' aspects of the role played a minor part. You also know that 'the Cannibal' was renowned for his greedy pursuit of victory, hence the moniker: he was not known for gifting victories to team riders..or to rivals, as a payment for future services. Merckx was not a typical patron and not in my mind when I wrote about them. Of course all big-time team leaders (and the patron was always one of these) had great influence at contract time- who got to ride on which team, who had a contract (and for how much money)in the post-Tour criterium circuit. I'd say that this affected riders' livelihoods, wouldn't you? Riders from different eras, like Barry Hoban, Paul Kimmage and Freddy Maertens mention the horse trading and corruption explicitly in their writings, as does Geoff Nicholson in his superb first book about the Tour (The Great Bike Race, 1977).

Intimidation? Any reputable history of road cycling will give instances of fraud, impersonation, violent assault, threats of many kinds. As one of the oldest professional sports, cycling has always had drug and corruption problems and it's culture is one of rumour and intrigue.

Marty, the kind of slurs I refer to just keep coming........ when was an American (or, for that matter, British, Canadian, Australian) rider last referrred to in this forum as a '4th rate POS'? Fascism? The Mafia? Unworthy cliches. The Giro organisers risked the whole future of the race when they purged some of the culprits and upset their friends a couple of years back. Much of the impetus for that came from the Authorities, not the UCI, yet here they are accused of .......not having an American legal system! ('Probable cause').

It ill-behoves Americans to be decrying the efforts of some Europeans to clean up our sport. The Giro is an Italian institution and the primary responsibility for it's health remains in that country. If this requires midnight searches and trips to the Police HQ, so be it. Playing nice with drug cheats has led us to the execrable situation we now face, in many sporting and social arenas. Offending a few sports stars is a price worth paying; question is- what do we want in return?

I understand the healthy nationalistic interest in the doings of Home riders but I am more interested with the sport as a whole. I could care less whether David Millar races again or whether Tyler Hamilton wins his appeal. I no longer follow the Olympics and I gave away my ticket to see Bonds hit his 700th, at SBC. Roubaix is usually a highlight of the year for me. I often go to stand at the roadside and get dirty/cold/wet/knocked over in the rush. This time, I haven't even checked my calendar, yet.

Cheat fatigue? Surely some more of you have it?

Whether Merckx and Hinault are the greatest heros of the sport of cycling is of course an individual choice, but the reasons for their being known as the cannibal and the badger respectively is because of their racing styles, not because of the way they treated their fellow competitors.

so I suppose when Merckxx had a 7 1/2 minute lead in the Tour and he went on a solo break to win the stage, he did that out of interest for the peloton? When he said he won stages he didn't need to, to keep pou pou from getting a win, that was in the interest of the peloton? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

There are all sorts of tales of bitter rivalries in the peloton, based on personal feelings. We don't know the extent of what happened in those situations because we didn't have 80 cameras and helicopters monitoring their every move.

Marty, the kind of slurs I refer to just keep coming........ when was an American (or, for that matter, British, Canadian, Australian) rider last referrred to in this forum as a '4th rate POS'?

yet here they are accused of .......not having an American legal system! ('Probable cause').

It ill-behoves Americans to be decrying the efforts of some Europeans to clean up our sport.

I understand the healthy nationalistic interest in the doings of Home riders but I am more interested with the sport as a whole.

Cheat fatigue? Surely some more of you have it?

Actually, i think you could find quite a few negative references to LA AND Tyler Hamilton all over the place.

You'll just have to forgive us americans for not understanding a legal system that doesn't require probable cause to disrupt your life. We've always had it, we've been raised to value it and fight to the death to defend it. When we see other countries not doing it that way, we get agitated because it's in our core values (in general, of course there are people who understand different countries legal systems.)

I personally am not decrying the sports efforts to clean itself up, I often laugh when I hear people talk about the efforts of Major league Baseball to clean up and explain to them the (what I often consider overzealous, but effective) anti doping efforts in our sport. I am personally responding the idea that chasing down a rival of a personal nature whether he is a threat competitively or not has somehow become criminal.

If it were Simeoni that chased down Armstrong and kept him from winning a stage I would have applauded him. Of course that's a whole different situation, I don't applaud Armstrong. But I certainly don't want to see him flogged, or think any less of his palmares.

Marty, the kind of slurs I refer to just keep coming........ when was an American (or, for that matter, British, Canadian, Australian) rider last referrred to in this forum as a '4th rate POS'? Fascism? The Mafia? Unworthy cliches. The Giro organisers risked the whole future of the race when they purged some of the culprits and upset their friends a couple of years back. Much of the impetus for that came from the Authorities, not the UCI, yet here they are accused of .......not having an American legal system! ('Probable cause').

1. They are not accused...they do. Accused means there is some question and now we are going about finding out if, indeed, they do search rooms in the middle of the night without warrants and probable cause. It occurs. It is a fact.
When I lived overseas, I lived by the rules there. I like the rules here.

2. If a factual cyberconversation about how different countries go about investigating people is a slur, they I'd suggest that is a bit too sensitive.

BTW...I find it interesting that you do not identify where you are from.

There is a thing called due process....and, BTW, it was not "The Giro" that purged, it was the local and national legal authorities that did that.

There are all sorts of tales of bitter rivalries in the peloton, based on personal feelings. We don't know the extent of what happened in those situations because we didn't have 80 cameras and helicopters monitoring their every move.

This is true, but then no one would say that because someone didn't like someone or felt an intense rivalry with them it was because he was being a patron.

There is a different between leading the peleton, which is what a patron does, and engaging in petty or bitter rivalries, which is what most competitors do.

What Armstrong was doing was engaging in a petty rivalry, a vindictive sorty. To say he was being a patron would be to misunderstand the term and what it entails. He may be a patron, but in this instance he was not acting as a patron.

Flaneur,
I never called anyone a mafioso (not a member of the peloton at least)
what I did say was that this was a good case for a prosecutor in
Italy to bring as opposed to charging an Italian rider (look at the
Pantani fiasco in terms of conspiracy theory) or the Italian mafia
(which largely results in the prosecutors death).

Marty

Does Simioni have any witnesses? Otherwise, seems like his case doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Does Simioni have any witnesses? Otherwise, seems like his case doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

It doesn't matter. The Italians have kept a non-Italian, with a legitimate chance of winning, out of the Giro. Game over. :)

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't alleged by others in the break that Lance told them that as long as Simeoni was in the break none of them would win. So in fact he used his influence to have the others kick Simeoni out. That would be the same as someone from your work telling others at your work to do there best not to let you do your job. I think that is messing with someone's livelyhood. It doesn't matter if Simeoni makes ten million a year and wins every race he enters, or if he is at the back of the pack and makes $100 a race. Would it be tolerated if Barry Bonds used his influence to keep a utility infielder out of games, because he doesn't like that player is testifying against Victor Conte. No it wouldn't, there would be an uproar in this country about it and Bonds would be investigated for witness tampering.

Additionally, this all started when Simeoni agreed to testify against Ferrari, not Armstrong. Armstrong chose to make it about him and Simeoni, not Simeoni.

2 things: don d, I never called him a patron.

HJR you're comparing apples to oranges. Your job is probably not a sport. Also, he didnt' keep Simeoni out of the game. He kept him from winning. One could argue that is part of cyclist's job. To keep others from winning. Barry Bonds keeping a member of another team from winning would be comparable, not keeping some other player off of the field.

One last thing. As annoying as all of this banter is, isn't it great that we all love our sport so much that we would get this passionate about this goofiness?

I don't think it's because they only want italians to win the race. I think the whole accusation is crap. Armstrong would probably do the giro but i think once he decided to do the tour, he scrapped the giro so he wouldn't fry himself for the tour. The giro is not a race he would have as good a chance of winning. For one thing, almost no time trials, no team time trials, and some of the climbs are even worse than ones in the tour. Even armstrong admitted that the Mortirolo was the hardest climb he'd ever done in his life; that's why doing the giro gets you so fried. If he still wants to win the tour, forget the giro until next year, and i think that was probably a big part of it.

Don,

in many ways, Armstrong is a very typical patron, albeit a part-timer;-) His influence can be valuable to his fellow racers and he uses this position of leverage not to foster personal popularity, but in old-fashioned ways......bitter, vindictive and unprofessional, sometimes. Paul Kimmage called whistle blowing 'spitting in the soup', using the idiom of the peloton in the late 80's. He knew, because he was ostracised for so doing, in his expose about drug abuse "A Rough Ride"(1990). By testifying against Ferrari, Simeoni is spitting in the same soup and Armstrong is behaving in a deeply traditional manner, more like Anquetil than Indurain. I agree with all the posters who decry the unworthiness of Armstrong's behaviour in this matter but I consider it par for the course amongst cycling's power brokers. In the era pre-'85, say, the composition of breaks in big races was approved by leaders, to a much greater degree than is now the case. Breaks without approved membership were ruthlessly subdued, by combinations of teams, which is much more subtly arranged nowadays. When Armstrong offered the mountain stage to Pantani- possibly as a gesture of respect- he committed a faux pas: he was treating as an inferior someone who had recently won a Tour, and still considered himself a live contender. Tradition misapplied.
I believe Armstrong's attempt to discipline and intimidate Simeoni at the Tour was a way of enforcing traditional rules of silence, in the manner of Anquetil or Hinault, another misapplication of historical precedent. He might even have thought his action would be popular in the bunch- at least amongst the conservative elements. In talking to prosecutors and journalists, guys like Simeoni are using a modern weapon to shed light in the murk, and more power to them.

I think you know that many facets of the traditional Patron's role were anything but benign but are continuing to portray it in a romantic way; I wonder why? I know you'll agree that Greg Lemond had a revolutionary effect on the pay and conditions of the peloton, with his refreshingly American slant on the business of cycling, whilst rejecting the values af patronage. Perhaps a more contemporary outlook would serve Armstrong better, unless he really has something to hide?

eric

"one of the most frustrating parts of it all [drug culture in pro cycling]is the reluctance of the riders to change things. Too many are unwilling to breach the law of silence. the big men never talk and to be honest I don't really blame them-what have they to gain? They too were once young and innocent. If they took illegal substances it was only because everyone else was doing it. It's not their fault. If races were tightly controlled they would still come out on top. Why should they talk? So that some smutty columnist can label them as 'cheats'? No, we must not wait for confessions from the champions before taking action. They won't be painted as devils. i respect this. But I don't respect them when they start passing the buck, pointing the finger, promoting themselves as angels- for this is often the case."

Paul Kimmage "A Rough Ride" 1990

Don, I think you know that many facets of the traditional Patron's role were anything but benign but are continuing to portray it in a romantic way; I wonder why? I know you'll agree that Greg Lemond had a revolutionary effect on the pay and conditions of the peloton, with his refreshingly American slant on the business of cycling, whilst rejecting the values af patronage. Perhaps a more contemporary outlook would serve Armstrong better, unless he really has something to hide?

eric

Well, you have hit the nail on the head. I chose to define a patron by the romantic or traditional definitions and in so doing, I hope that the values assigned to the term will be upheld, and if they are not, then I hope that undeserving usurpers to the role will be rejected or exposed by the fans.

We are all able to chose what we will call a thing, in this case what we will call behavior that is the behavior of a patron and what we will call behavior that is vindictive, petty, and self-serving. When I think of a patron, I think of a photo of Marco Pantani sitting in the lotus position in front of the peleton, taking the lead in a rider protest. I think of Greg Lemond's leadership in redefining the wage structure for the entire peleton, a leadership that riders like Michele Bartoli are still expressing gratitude and admiration for. If we call this the behavior of a patron and if we call Lance's behavior petty and vindictive, then when someone says, "Lance was just being a patron when he intimidated a whistle blower.", we can politely clarify that Lance's behavior is not patronesque.

In a sense, we chose to wait for someone worthy to take up the sword again and lead with honor and dignity. Perhaps no one man can do this all the time, but if we focus on the moments when these values are upheld and fulfilled, then we the fans will be reinforcing the positive, chosing to call something what it should be.

It is only because there are so many new fans here that I even make an issue out of this when someone mistakenly, at least to me, misapplies the term patron to LA when he engages in a personal vendetta. Of course there will always be those that for various reasons, be they nationalistic, personal, or whatever will chose the "I'm a Lance fan right or wrong" approach. I think they are fans of Lance and not fans of cycling.

Don,

quality post!

e

stage 18 was a thing of beauty. i would have done the same thing. screw the old world countries and their smugness. LA is a super power that is from a superpower.

OK, when it comes to following the bike racing scene, I'm a bit of a novice. But as I recall, Armstrong was criticized for allowing Pantani to win a stage that LA could have taken. Now he's being criticized for chasing down a breakaway. Looks like he'll be criticized no matter what he does.

Blackberry,
Its not quite that simple, and yes you are correct he will be
criticized no matter what he does.
The Stage 18 issue for me is that it was Personal (with a capitol P),
had Lance not had the legal actions pending with Simeoni and had done
the same thing he would have appeared more Patron like.
As it is Lance does have legal issue with simeoni and the entire thing looks
rather petty.

Marty

lance armstrong did no wrong. that's because he can do no wrong. he is a hero. he is american. 'nuff said.

lance armstrong did no wrong. that's because he can do no wrong. he is a hero. he is american. 'nuff said.

Lance did nothing right. That's because he's an American and if there's one thing I can't stand is yet ANOTHER successful American.

Pull up your shorts. Your xenophobia is showing.

"Nobody roots for Goliath"- Wilt Chamberlin

... especially by a guy who was in the race only to carry water bottles for his team. ...

I'd love to be good enough to do that.....

I think stage 18 was typical of what goes on in sports. Ever hear the sound reels from an NFL game or NBA? The comment "I'll destroy you" would probably rate as one of the sweetest things anyone said to an opponent in either of those two sports. I wouldn't go to Italy if I were Lance either.

As to drugs, I think they all do it*, so Lance doesn't have an advantage over the rest. At some point more and more people will be nailed, and then the drugs will get better etc. The cycle continues. The only way to get drugs out of the sport is to have 24 hr policing of the riders. No one wants that.

*Just my opinion.

Pull up your shorts. Your xenophobia is showing.
why? because i think that lance is a great american hero? pshaw!

OK, when it comes to following the bike racing scene, I'm a bit of a novice. But as I recall, Armstrong was criticized for allowing Pantani to win a stage that LA could have taken. Now he's being criticized for chasing down a breakaway. Looks like he'll be criticized no matter what he does.

That's what happens when you are good.

I think LA is a typical person in many ways....he is flawed. He does a lot of good and makes some mistakes..the chasing of Simeoni was a mistake where "it seems" he let his personal feelings get a little too close to the surface. We all do this at times but leaders get called on it more often than most.

I really hate when someone tries to expose "dirty laundry" and gets labled as a bad apple. IF thats what the situation is with LA and Simeoni than LA deserves all the bad press they can dish out. Unfortunately we can only speculate...I just keep storing the information I get and remain suspicious of the sport I love.