'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

MPFG

No

Article on Puerto case...hope the Spainish go after them all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/27/wada-opertion-puerto

Fr D Maugire

No

elduggo wrote: »

very naive and ill-informed comment.

I don't follow. I am most definitely not naive or ill-informed so you will have to explain what you mean bu your comment.

aindriu80

No

I voted Yes. I watched Lance on both nights on Opera (it was on discovery) and couldn't believe it. It took quite a few years just to get the 'yeah i doped line' and it was only followed up by a few porkies. It looks like he can only accept what is blindingly obvious. I don't think he helped himself much.

Colonialboy

Yes, but he's still great

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I hope anyone who thinks Armstrong was unfairly treated or that the authorities went to extra lengths to catch him are following this.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-blanco-investigate-luis-leon-sanchezs-links-to-operacion-puerto

LL Sanchez is being investigated by his current team because journalist's THINK he might be the NICK-NAME 'Huerta' that appeared in the Puerto files 8 years ago!!!

No, no, it is only Armstrong that has to endure that kind of witch-hunt;)

being investigated by his current team ... current team theres a clue there .. figure it out yourself .

mcgratheoin

No

Weirdview wrote: »

How can this be ethical?

You're confusing ethical with moral. As a lawyer, LA's representatives are paid to be his advocates and to assist him in navigating legal proceedings with the best possible outcome for him. There is no onus on them to like him, believe him or support him, nor is there any onus on them to tell the truth if not under oath.

All accused criminals receive legal counsel, would you suggest that the defence lawyer in a clear-cut murder trial is unethical?

mcgratheoin

No

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I don't follow. I am most definitely not naive or ill-informed so you will have to explain what you mean bu your comment.

I think he's referring to the fact that the authorities haven't opened any case or begun any investigation into LL. It's his own team (TTFKAR) responding to a media report. Also, it's not that really true that somebody thinks he might be a specific nickname, it's because

1. he's a former client of Ferrari
2. a Puerto phone tap mentions that "Huerto" was 25 seconds late for the start of the Vuelta prologue in 2006 - LLS was 25 seconds late for that start
3. TTFKAR are publicly attempting to start afresh, and similar to Leinders' involvement with SKY, they need to be seen to do something

elduggo

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I don't follow. I am most definitely not naive or ill-informed so you will have to explain what you mean bu your comment.

you said this

LL Sanchez is being investigated by his current team because journalist's THINK he might be the NICK-NAME 'Huerta' that appeared in the Puerto files 8 years ago!!!

No, no, it is only Armstrong that has to endure that kind of witch-hunt

there is pretty good evidence (specific to a 25 or 26 second time window).

He was also named/implicated in the USADA report.

so he is not being investigated because journalists think his nickname might be Huerta. He is being investigated because of the other evidence that has come to light.

Flandria

No

elduggo wrote: »

you said this



there is pretty good evidence (specific to a 25 or 26 second time window).

He was also named/implicated in the USADA report.

so he is not being investigated because journalists think his nickname might be Huerta. He is being investigated because of the other evidence that has come to light.

Evidence?

Liberty. Seguros. ;)

elduggo

Flandria wrote: »

Evidence?

Liberty. Seguros. ;)

certainly wouldn't help his case.

possibly been posted already but this article explains the evidence to hand;

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13789/Blanco-Cycling-scrutinizes-Luis-Leon-Sanchezs-past-due-to-reported-links-to-Operacion-Puerto.aspx

Fr D Maugire

No

elduggo wrote: »

you said this



there is pretty good evidence (specific to a 25 or 26 second time window).

He was also named/implicated in the USADA report.

so he is not being investigated because journalists think his nickname might be Huerta. He is being investigated because of the other evidence that has come to light.

Yes you are right. At the time of my post, I hadn't read the reports about the phone call about the 25 seconds. Take out the 'might' in my original post and the investigation was still launched based on a newspaper report. I have zero problem's with this. Ill-informed at the time but hardly naive.

The USADA thing has been tagged on because if it was a factor, they should have launched their investigation back in December when it was first revealed.

Beasty

No

OK, let's end the discussion of what lawyers can and cannot say or the ethics of the legal profession.

Any questions, PM me

Thanks

Beasty

Cienciano

No

MPFG wrote: »

Article on Puerto case...hope the Spainish go after them all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/27/wada-opertion-puerto

If they go after big name footballers I'll eat my balls!

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Surprise!!!

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/uci-disbands-armstrong-commission-773324-Jan2013/

They weren't being as nice to the UCI as they should have, so they're disbanded. Next independent comission will have Darach and Andy McQuaid, Phil Liggett, Big Mig and Matthew McConaughey

SnowDrifts

Some thoughts from Formula 1 driver Mark Webber about his limited relationship with lance..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21240896

el tel

No

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Some thoughts from Formula 1 driver Mark Webber about his limited relationship with lance..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21240896

Lance probably stood him up at the Monaco GP when he realised he raced for Red Bull and not Ferrari

Beasty

No

As it's not really specific to LA and it deserves separate discussion away from the Lance "noise", I've moved the Independent Commission and Truth and Reconciliation stuff to the Truth and Reconciliation thread

Cienciano

No

Beasty wrote: »

As it's not really specific to LA and it deserves separate discussion away from the Lance "noise", I've moved the Independent Commission and Truth and Reconciliation stuff to the Truth and Reconciliation thread

At this point we could have an entire doping subforum

MB Lacey

He's a creep, he's a weirdo

buffalo

No

New interview: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview

He's an advocate of the TRC.

wonderfullife

No

buffalo wrote: »

New interview: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview

He's an advocate of the TRC.

he's an advocate of SHOA - which seeing as Lance likes acronyms stands for Saving His Own Ass.

He'll dish the dirt on everyone with an amnesty but telling the truth that could land him in further hassle = no chance. Self-serving, self-interested bully STILL on the offensive! Ah sure its cycling, all endemic, i was one of the boys!

wonderfullife

No

Quote taken from good interview with Mark Webber, F1 driver and former LA friend. Interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21240896

Whenever I think of Armstrong now, I think of the clean cyclists who competed in the system Armstrong was fuelling week in, week out.

We'll never know but some of them on their day could have challenged the likes of Armstrong, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Alexander Vinokourov, Alberto Contador, Richard Virenque and so on. Sadly, we don't even know their names but in my reckoning they're morally streets ahead of those guys.

Life is full of choices. Sure, none of us are perfect, but ultimately karma always triumphs.

The bolded bit is the part that hits home for me. All the "names" in cycling yet we'll just never know if the nobodies had the talent and determination to succeed on a level playing field. Consigned to anonymity by the likes of Armstrong.

velo.2010

That 'interview' with Lance is a wind-up surely, isn't it? I mean someone hacked into Cyclingnews' website and posted that 'interview' there?

Shameful that a supposedly respected and popular website would give Armstrong his opportunity to begin his redemption by asking such half-arsed questions.

Flandria

No

velo.2010 wrote: »

That 'interview' with Lance is a wind-up surely, isn't it? I mean someone hacked into Cyclingnews' website and posted that 'interview' there?

Shameful that a supposedly respected and popular website would give Armstrong his opportunity to begin his redemption by asking such half-arsed questions.

I don't know about that. Benson has spent the last 10 years with his head stuck up Armstrong's arse. His conversion in the last few months to outraged cycling fan is Damascene to say the least. CN might be popular but it still has a bit of a way to go to respectable...

Fr D Maugire

No

I don't think it was even a real interview. Just a list of questions that were e-mailed to Armstrong and he could respond any way he wanted knowing there was no follow-up on any of them. Easy for him to control the message.

Not real journalism at all. All about getting the hits on the website without any real investigative work.

Tombo2001

I actually think he is talking a lot of sense on that CN interview. He is highly likely to be right, there was never a time when cyclists didnt dope. And we know thats probably true.

So as a champion of the sport, he played by the rules of the sport and by the rules that all the other champions followed.......so its hypocritical then to single him out as the big bad wolf.....I would go along with that.

You can say all you want about he went about it in a more professional way or whatever.....but all you are saying then is that he is a bigger bollix than all the other bollixes.....

But you cant say that lance armstrong stopped clean cyclists from winning because that was happening anyways.

happytramp

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But you cant say that lance armstrong stopped clean cyclists from winning because that was happening anyways.

Nope, but we can say that he made bloody sure they got fired from his team.

Tombo2001

happytramp wrote: »

Nope, but we can say that he made bloody sure they got fired from his team.

And that is why I said, that just makes him a bigger bollix than all the other bollixes.

happytramp

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And that is why I said, that just makes him a bigger bollix than all the other bollixes.

It makes him a completely different and incomparable bollix. We're almost getting into pusher/user territory.

Tombo2001

happytramp wrote: »

It makes him a completely different and incomparable bollix. We're almost getting into pusher/user territory.

I dont think you have the information to make that judgement.

You know all about Lance Armstrong.

But you cant tell me that what he was doing wasnt going on in twenty other teams.........that Ullrich or Pantani or Virenque or Riis or their team managers didnt put huge pressure on cyclists to dope. How would you know? You dont....

happytramp

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I dont think you have the information to make that judgement.

You know all about Lance Armstrong.

But you cant tell me that what he was doing wasnt going on in twenty other teams.........that Ullrich or Pantani or Virenque or Riis or their team managers didnt put huge pressure on cyclists to dope. How would you know? You dont....

And you do? Apparently you're well enough informed to come on here defending him. At best you could say he might be just a bigger bollix than the rest.

Tombo2001

happytramp wrote: »

And you do? Apparently you're well enough informed to come on here defending him. At best you could say he might be just a bigger bollix than the rest.

ok Mr Pedantic, in that case you'd be better off saying he might be an incomparable bollix but he might not....

And by the way........you are right I dont know, but I'd be very very very surprised if he was the only team leader who ever put huge pressure on his team mates to dope......

Ever get that feeling when you are writing something that is so obvious that you dont know why you need to write it.....well I just got that.