'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

dave2pvd

No

Part 4 is up.

petethedrummer

No

Lance is blaming the narrative, the momentum and all sorts of conceptual entities. There's a touch of Seanie Fitzpatrick about all this...

"Will you say sorry to the taxpayer and to the shareholders in Anglo Irish Bank?"

"That's a simple question, but the answer isn't. What if I were to invite you, Ronald, to sit down here with me for a cup of tea and a chat. And what if, in the course of our conversation, you were to have a cigarette. And when you were finished with your cigarette, you were to throw the butt on the floor and this shed burned to the ground. Could I ask you to say 'sorry'?"

Slo_Rida

petethedrummer wrote: »

I can't be having this big conspiracy against Lance hypothesis....

The UCI did not invest anything in destroying Lance.
No cycling publications invested anything in destroying Lance.
99(ish)% of cycling journalists invested nothing in destroying Lance.
A very small number of journalists invested time and energy in destroying Lance.
A few former work colleagues of Lance told the truth in court and in interviews.
USADA interviewed ALL american riders on USPS/Disco after years of ignoring the obvious.
Some people on internet forums stated the obvious for a few years.

You're totally sidetracking my point. People are just carried away with the benefit of the USADA investigation into LA, that was my point. I made no reference to UCI or journalists.
"People are getting 'punishment for LA' mixed up with 'chaniging a doping culture'."

Some anti-Lance people on here imply that others may have their heads in the sand but the USADA thing on Lance will do fcuk all to "change cycling".
I'm fed up of the 2 things being put together.

CramCycle

Yes, but he's still great

petethedrummer wrote: »

Lance is blaming the narrative, the momentum and all sorts of conceptual entities. There's a touch of Seanie Fitzpatrick about all this...

"Will you say sorry to the taxpayer and to the shareholders in Anglo Irish Bank?"

"That's a simple question, but the answer isn't. What if I were to invite you, Ronald, to sit down here with me for a cup of tea and a chat. And what if, in the course of our conversation, you were to have a cigarette. And when you were finished with your cigarette, you were to throw the butt on the floor and this shed burned to the ground. Could I ask you to say 'sorry'?"

TBF, If someone burned down my shed like that, I'd expect them to pay for it. On a similar note, I wouldn't wait for it to burn time, I'd ask them to pick it up and put it out properly and in the bin afterwards, if they refused, I would do it and then throw them the F out of my shed for being an unmannerly twot.

What SF done was to light a zippo when peoples back were turned and threw it on the ground, he didn't know the place would burn down but he can't claim innocence when it does. It sickens me to head home and hear neighbours defending him. Much like Lance, he was Greedy, he ran away with himself when he seen a short cut, and when caught, he goes to every length to lay the blame at everyone elses door, while giving insincere apologies to further shift the blame from himself.

petethedrummer

No

Slo_Rida wrote: »

You're totally sidetracking my point.

I was yes. any mention of this being a witch hunt makes me go off on one.

Beasty

No

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. Investing so much in destroying LA did very little to help in the cause of changing cycling. Do you think riders in the last 12 months have been saying "Sh!t Lance just got investigated I'll put down this needle"?
Cooksons reign in UCI may change the culture but crushing Lance....that just satisfied all the people who were pissed off at him.
People are getting 'punishment for LA' mixed up with 'chaniging a doping culture'.

Cookson would almost certainly not have got in but for the Armstrong affair. The USADA investigation was essentially the trigger for the campaign to get McQuaid out.

petethedrummer

No

CramCycle wrote: »

TBF, If someone burned down my shed like that, I'd expect them to pay for it. On a similar note, I wouldn't wait for it to burn time, I'd ask them to pick it up and put it out properly and in the bin afterwards, if they refused, I would do it and then throw them the F out of my shed for being an unmannerly twot.

More importantly what was Seanie Fitzpatrick doing being interviewed in a wooden shed?

pelevin

I disagree quite strongly with the bringing down of LA having no effect on changing the doping culture. Beasty's point for one is correct that it brought down the downfall of not just Pat McQuaid, but the whole regime of which he was just the figurehead. Beyond that, but interrelated with it, that downfall came about because there was and is a massive public desire, & within the cycling world itself with figures like Vaughters, for a radical change within the ethos of professional cycling regarding doping.

I would agree however that if everyone pretended that with LA's downfall "The witch is dead," and the hard work done, then it'll be deja vu all over again, & soon enough everything would revert or go on as before. For now I would say there has been quite a momentum change or movement towards clean cycling and the bringing to book of LA embodied that, was a flag-bearer moment for it. In itself it carries alot of emotional & argumentative impact on particularly those coming into the sport that doping is absolutely wrong, not just part of the game. At the moment obviously the future is unfixed, but it has made the possibility of a brighter future much more likely or realistic.

If that momentum is carried forward, then I would say absolutely the whole LA affair has contributed massively towards, & made much more plausible clean(er) cycling. Within the cycling world it's, with obviously very different kind of connotations, a kind of crucifixion moment and carries alot of power.

Russman

No

pelevin wrote: »

I disagree quite strongly with the bringing down of LA having no effect on changing the doping culture. Beasty's point for one is correct that it brought down the downfall of not just Pat McQuaid, but the whole regime of which he was just the figurehead. Beyond that, but interrelated with it, that downfall came about because there was and is a massive public desire, & within the cycling world itself with figures like Vaughters, for a radical change within the ethos of professional cycling regarding doping.

I would agree however that if everyone pretended that with LA's downfall "The witch is dead," and the hard work done, then it'll be deja vu all over again, & soon enough everything would revert or go on as before. For now I would say there has been quite a momentum change or movement towards clean cycling and the bringing to book of LA embodied that, was a flag-bearer moment for it. In itself it carries alot of emotional & argumentative impact on particularly those coming into the sport that doping is absolutely wrong, not just part of the game. At the moment obviously the future is unfixed, but it has made the possibility of a brighter future much more likely or realistic.

If that momentum is carried forward, then I would say absolutely the whole LA affair has contributed massively towards, & made much more plausible clean(er) cycling. Within the cycling world it's, with obviously very different kind of connotations, a kind of crucifixion moment and carries alot of power.

I think its more a desire from outside the cycling world than inside it TBH. Obviously just IMO, but cycling has shown over and over that the default setting is so ingrained in the culture that its unlikely to ever change. Perhaps a genuine T&R process might be effective, but so many team managers, DSs etc were wrapped up in the culture, it just seems beyond belief that they'll all say "OK lets wipe the slate and start off again, clean". Maybe that's too pessimistic, but when you see some of the, shall we say "interesting" riders being hired by similarly "interesting" teams, it doesn't bode well IMO.

I suspect dopers who are outed or come clean are more sorry they were caught, than sorry they doped, and if that's a reality as opposed to just my opinion, then its unlikely to change. We'll continue to be told that there was a tailwind whenever someone does something extraordinary.

I guess whether the sport takes the view you mention above that the witch is dead or strives to really change, will decide whether a critical mass has been reached.

Hermy

No

Morrisseeee wrote: »

We have no voice, no unity.

Dear Lance, cycling had no voice because people like you insisted on a policy of Omerta.

Slo_Rida

You're in cuckoo land I think. Firstly "the whole regime" hasn't come down...yet. And I'm probably more into severe punishment for cheaters than a lot of you may think from my posts in this thread.
But when it comes to the LA era, there are so many other avenues USADA/WADA/UCI could have gone down to learn more about the doping then. It's widely accepted that a large number of riders who were contesting those grand tours were doping, so why not bring say Jan Ulrich or others who we also know doped and quiz them on how they think the sport could improve?
Nothing to lose or gain by them except maybe gain some credibilty.
Again, the chasing of LA I would reiterate did NOT lead to the fall of McQuaid, his tenure was up and his own union refused to nominate him - are you saying that the people who worked so hard on that front only did it because Lance had been found guilty by some USADA report? No, they wanted change and would have gone for it anyway.
There are so many dopers who got away with an ould suspension and could have contributed so much more. But people were much happier to see the celebrity brought down. The people who the UCI wouldn't give the 7 tours to.....invite them in not under oath or anything and talk.


Lance was a cheating rat but the benefit of the USADA investigation is grossly overstated.

Beasty

No

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Again, the chasing of LA I would reiterate did NOT lead to the fall of McQuaid, his tenure was up and his own union refused to nominate him - are you saying that the people who worked so hard on that front only did it because Lance had been found guilty by some USADA report? No, they wanted change and would have gone for it anyway.

It was the trigger, and I could give you chapter and verse but there are plenty of threads on here that already do that. However the whole Irish campaign to oust McQuaid started with two delegates from Swords CC attempting to have a motion of no confidence heard at last year's AGM following the handling of the USADA report by the UCI. The request for a vote was turned down - the rest, as they say, is history. I would say, however, that there were numerous occasions throughout the past 12 months where a slight change in direction or circumstances would in all likelihood have resulted in McQuaid still being at the helm of the UCI.

petethedrummer

No

Slo_Rida wrote: »

there are so many other avenues USADA/WADA/UCI could have gone down to learn more about the doping then. It's widely accepted that a large number of riders who were contesting those grand tours were doping, so why not bring say Jan Ulrich or others who we also know doped and quiz them on how they think the sport could improve?

AFAIK WADA leave it up to the National Federation to investigate. They just set up the rules.
Ullrich doesn't fall under USADA juristiction.
And up until now the UCI have had no interested in revealing what was going on.

Ullrich was investigated a number of times by the Swiss and the German Federations and did receive a retroactive ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ullrich

mcgratheoin

No

Beasty wrote: »

It was the trigger, and I could give you chapter and verse but there are plenty of threads on here that already do that. However the whole Irish campaign to oust McQuaid started with two delegates from Swords CC attempting to have a motion of no confidence heard at last year's AGM following the handling of the USADA report by the UCI. The request for a vote was turned down - the rest, as they say, is history. I would say, however, that there were numerous occasions throughout the past 12 months where a slight change in direction or circumstances would in all likelihood have resulted in McQuaid still being at the helm of the UCI.

Absolutely - even in this small corner of the internet, without the USADA report, everything written about LA woudl be prefaced by "allegedly" and most of it would be swept up by mods protecting the charter. The part of the USADA report which vilified the UCI for obstructing the investigation and for ignoring previous whistle-blowers is the main thing that lead me to the conclusion that the UCI needed a change to move forward.
You can search the McQuaid/Cookson thread for a more detailed explanation of my views, but the report showed a level of incompetence or wilful neglect in the governance of the UCI that would not have been as apparent otherwise. The report also directly lead to the fiasco surrounding the UCI's independent inquiry commission which I believe had a significant negative effect on Pat's re-election bid.

nilhg

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Absolutely - even in this small corner of the internet, without the USADA report, everything written about LA woudl be prefaced by "allegedly" and most of it would be swept up by mods protecting the charter. The part of the USADA report which vilified the UCI for obstructing the investigation and for ignoring previous whistle-blowers is the main thing that lead me to the conclusion that the UCI needed a change to move forward.
You can search the McQuaid/Cookson thread for a more detailed explanation of my views, but the report showed a level of incompetence or wilful neglect in the governance of the UCI that would not have been as apparent otherwise. The report also directly lead to the fiasco surrounding the UCI's independent inquiry commission which I believe had a significant negative effect on Pat's re-election bid.

That was the straw that broke the camels back for me, not that I did a whole lot compared to others but I did email the board of CI to have an EGM, and went myself to vote against PmcQ's nomination on a fine Saturday morning when I probably could have been better occupied. IMHO losing his "home" nomination was the beginning of the end for him and the coterie he had around him.

pelevin

Slo_Rida wrote: »

You're in cuckoo land I think. Firstly "the whole regime" hasn't come down...yet. And I'm probably more into severe punishment for cheaters than a lot of you may think from my posts in this thread.
But when it comes to the LA era, there are so many other avenues USADA/WADA/UCI could have gone down to learn more about the doping then. It's widely accepted that a large number of riders who were contesting those grand tours were doping, so why not bring say Jan Ulrich or others who we also know doped and quiz them on how they think the sport could improve?
Nothing to lose or gain by them except maybe gain some credibilty.
Again, the chasing of LA I would reiterate did NOT lead to the fall of McQuaid, his tenure was up and his own union refused to nominate him - are you saying that the people who worked so hard on that front only did it because Lance had been found guilty by some USADA report? No, they wanted change and would have gone for it anyway.
There are so many dopers who got away with an ould suspension and could have contributed so much more. But people were much happier to see the celebrity brought down. The people who the UCI wouldn't give the 7 tours to.....invite them in not under oath or anything and talk.


Lance was a cheating rat but the benefit of the USADA investigation is grossly overstated.

I don't know how you're failing to equate the LA affair to the fall of McQuaid. The two couldn't be more obviously linked. The regime I was alluding to isn't supposed to refer to the whole traditional cycling community but to the inner UCI circle that Cookson quickly had replaced, i.e. the hardcore circle of Verbruggen/McQuaid & their enforcers.

Tobh, to say again, baffled how you could think LA affair did not directly link into McQuaid's removal from office.

Slo_Rida

pelevin wrote: »

I don't know how you're failing to equate the LA affair to the fall of McQuaid. The two couldn't be more obviously linked. The regime I was alluding to isn't supposed to refer to the whole traditional cycling community but to the inner UCI circle that Cookson quickly had replaced, i.e. the hardcore circle of Verbruggen/McQuaid & their enforcers.

Tobh, to say again, baffled how you could think LA affair did not directly link into McQuaid's removal from office.

Perhaps so.

le petit braquet

WADA president John Fahey says that Armstrong would would need “something close to a miracle” to get his life ban quashed in exchange for coming clean about his doping activities

Link

Macy0161

No

le petit braquet wrote: »

WADA president John Fahey says that Armstrong would would need “something close to a miracle” to get his life ban quashed in exchange for coming clean about his doping activities

Link

I'm sorry for him. I'm sorry he can't believe in miracles.

1750W

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm sorry for him. I'm sorry he can't believe in miracles.

Quite possibly the post if the year 10/10 for sarcasm

drogdub

No

BBC5 playing a new interview now with LA, the two boys from the velocast and Jeremy Wittle giving their reaction

mcgratheoin

No

Good article on the current LA media blitz in the Guardian here.

Apparently Velonation refused to interview him unless he provided new material that he had denied before - kudos to them for sticking to their principles..

aloyisious

No

CineWorld Dublin has a poster up for the Lance Armstrong film, something about the truth. The name of the film, according to the Advert-poster in CineWorld, is "The Armstrong Lie"

Wishbone Ash

aloyisious wrote: »

CineWorld Dublin has a poster up for the Lance Armstrong film, something about the truth. The name of the film, according to the Advert-poster in CineWorld, is "The Armstrong Lie"

I was at a loose end so went to see it tonight - I was the only one at it! :cool:

happytramp

No

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was at a loose end so went to see it tonight - I was the only one at it! :cool:

Any use?

Wishbone Ash

happytramp wrote: »

Any use?

It's watchable but nothing really new in it and it certainly does LA no favours even though filming initially began as a "fly on the wall" documentary for the 2009 TDF.

Some interesting behind the scenes bits on the 2009 TDF and early footage of LA as a teenager. One of the domestiques on the Astana team had a handlebar mounted camera so some nice footage from inside the peleton.

feck sake lads

best cyclist that ever pushed a bike:D

aloyisious

No

Side effects: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/bradley-wiggins-children-bullied-over-armstrong-revelations-1.1680360

Bradley Wiggins’ children bullied over Armstrong revelations, forced to change schools.

happytramp

No

feck sake lads wrote: »

best cyclist that ever pushed a bike:D

Up Patrick's hill maybe, but even that's a stretch.

aloyisious

No

Just saw thin in the online Irish Independent "tweets section".... http://t.co/ug2nWR4Mel