Lance Armstrong may confess to doping during his career as a professional cyclist. You or I may win the lottery. Which is more likely to occur? For the moment, my money is on the lottery.
And yet, Juliet Macur, who has followed the doping in sports beat at the New York Times for six years or more, published an article that suggests Armstrong may actually be considering some sort of admission that he doped during his racing days.
Macur’s article cites anonymous sources who are “several people with direct knowledge” of the dethroned Tour winner’s discussions with various associates and anti-doping officials. No one is going on the record at this point to say that the story is correct. But there are some curious clues, among them, this:
When asked if Armstrong might admit to doping, Tim Herman, Armstrong’s longtime lawyer, said, “Lance has to speak for himself on that.”
That’s the kind of non-denial that almost suggests Armstrong might actually be considering such a move. Perhaps he is. Or perhaps someone close to him is trying to convince Armstrong that this would be the best move. The story, as Macur presents it, has all the hallmarks of someone — or several people — leaking a story to “run it up the flagpole” and see what reaction it brings. The source(s) could be Armstrong, Tim Herman, or a number of others close to the cyclist.
Lance Armstrong is a cagey fighter. When he raced, he thought about what tactics would best benefit his chances — especially in the major events, such as the Tour. It stands to reason that if he were contemplating a confession — ostensibly so he could begin to compete again (more about that in a bit) — he will figure out the best tactics for presenting his case to the anti-doping officials and to the general public.
If he were to admit to doping, I would expect that admission to include the bare minimum of information so that he could get his life ban reduced, while not harming the interests of sponsors he might seek to further his triathlon or running ambitions. And like Michael Vick, who regained some of his sponsors after he came out of prison and rejoined the NFL, Armstrong might similarly hope to regain contracts with Nike and Oakley and Trek, to name three of his longest-term financial benefactors.
If he were to attempt such a deal, Armstrong would be asking USADA to do something that it has rarely — if ever — done before. Namely, to reduce a ban after a case was already concluded. Tom Zirbel got some consideration for helping USADA out after his own case ended, but that was for help in a supposedly unrelated anti-doping case. The time for cutting a deal such as Armstrong may be seeking would have been before the case was decided. Like when USADA was collecting testimony from a bevy of witnesses who had the knowledge that could (and did) sink Armstrong’s reputation.
Be that as it may, if Armstrong could cut a deal, the question to consider is this: What information could he give that would be worthwhile to USADA? Admitting to what was in USADA’s “reasoned decision” wouldn’t cut it. That’s old news. And it doesn’t further any prospective cases that I can think of.
The only information that I think would be of value would likely be information Armstrong might be reluctant to divulge. For example, from Tyler Hamilton’s book it’s clear that the US Postal Service squad had an organized doping program before Lance Armstrong arrived. Armstrong could name names as to who organized the program and who funded it. But that might entail spilling the beans on people such as Tom Weisel, an owner of the team who has also helped Armstrong with various businesses, business deals and investments. If Lance Armstrong is truly worth the $125 million that has been cited in various news stories, Tom Weisel probably has a hand in helping Armstrong amass such a fortune.
Armstrong could also provide information about how the UCI allegedly swept one or two positive test results under the rug. And that could entail dishing dirt on Hein Verbruggen, Pat McQuaid and possibly others within the governing body’s organization. Those people might be expendable to Armstrong, as it’s doubtful that he would seek to come out of retirement from bike racing again.
So Armstrong might have some valuable information to trade for a reduced suspension. But even if he does, what would his suspension be reduced to? Most likely an eight-year ban, which would mean he would be close to 50 when he could return to triathlon competition or running in various marathons or other events. If he cut the best possible deal, he might get it reduced to four years — which means he would have about three-and-a-half years to go before he could compete again. And of the possible outcomes, a reduction to a four-year ban is the least likely from my perspective.
Who would benefit from all this? Well, Lance Armstrong, for one. Especially if he could regain his former sponsorship income. The Livestrong Foundation might benefit, as an admission might be seen as a sign of humility on its founder’s part, and that might help with fundraising and other activities.
Would the sport of cycling benefit? Hard to say. If his confession were to bring about changes at the UCI, then perhaps it might benefit the sport.
There are a number of variables at play here, including whether or not USADA would be willing to cut a deal with Armstrong after the fact. The lawsuits Armstrong is currently embroiled in will factor into any decision to come clean. A confession might have negative consequences in those cases. One, he could be out a whole heck of a lot of money (not that he doesn’t have enough for several lifetimes). Two, he could face potential criminal prosecution.
Armstrong testified under oath at times in the past, vehemently denying that he doped. With a confession, that testimony would have the stench of perjury about it, for which Lance could be prosecuted and potentially serve jail time.
Given the legal and financial downsides to a confession, I find it hard to believe that Lance Armstrong would admit to doping during his racing career. Nothing is impossible. And if he were to find ways to settle the current lawsuits, and to secure a guarantee that he wouldn’t be prosecuted for perjury, maybe Armstrong would confess.
Without those two things happening, I can’t imagine Lance Armstrong will confess to what he did in the past. Then again, someday one of us might win the lottery. The odds are slim in either event, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.
That Armstrong would confess simply to be able to indulge his pastime of marathon/triathlon seems highly unlikely to me. So I think, if indeed he is contemplating doing this, there is something more he has in mind. The sponsorship deal could be possible, and he might be looking to see if indeed any potential sponsors salute now that this has been run up the flagpole. Whether anyone would be interested in sponsoring him years down the road in what amounts to a hobby for him is hard to say. As I said on my comment on your previous article, public opinion to this day on Armstrong is all over the place, and I suspect that a lot of the anti-Armstrong crowd is pretty well locked into their opinion. They probably would tend to actively avoid any products endorsed by Armstrong, and to what extent those with more favorable opinions, or at least not so hard core unfavorable opinions would buy products based on such endorsement is hard to say. Personally I think a sponsor has little to gain and much to lose.
In regards to his legal situation, that is another story. I think that in the long run, whether or not he does confess, that any civil ligagation will be settled out of court through behind the scenes negotiations. But the potential for criminal charges is another thing. We know that the Feds did decline to prosecute him, but as far as I know, any perjury he committed would have been in a state court, not federal. To what extent any of the evidence USADA used might be admissible in court for a perjury trial, I don’t know. But a confession would be a different thing. But in order to get some sort of deal with either immunity or at least some sort of wrist-slap sentence, he would need to provide some information on criminal matters subject to the jurisdiction of anybody who could bring charges against him. I don’t think that any info on UCI misdeeds would do the trick here. Any info on mis-use of USPS funds would be a federal matter, and I don’t think the Feds can, on their own grant immunity for state prosecution.
On the other hand, I understand that perjury cases can be tricky and he might be looking to see to what extent anybody is interested in pursuing such charges if at all. There is a case here in Columbia where two witnesses have recanted their testimony, under oath, and so clearly at some point have committed perjury, although it is hard to say whether the original testimony or the recantation is perjury. So far nobody has indicated any interest in pursuing a perjury charge. But the authorities may be waiting until all appeals are played out.
It is the Floyd Landis whistle-blowers case that is of the greatest interest. We don’t know why the Feds didn’t prosecute Lance last year, but one very likely scenario is that allowing USADA to proceed and then to follow was the better legal move.
Lance is not only in danger of perjury charges but also charges of defrauding the US government.
The only reasons Armstrong would even consider confessing is to avoid jail time and to avoid poverty. It has nothing to do with sports or his public reputation.
Call me crazy but I believe that Armstrong would like to help the sport of cycling overcome its doping problems. I don’t believe he’s an utterly selfish and/or cynical person as he is often painted. While he doesn’t have an ingrained Quaker conscience like Floyd, and is a much better liar than Floyd, I still think Armstrong would like to help cycling heal if he could….and this in itself is a very good reason to come clean. The last thing cycling needs is another band-aid solution…it needs an honest dialogue on doping. Armstrong knows that as well as anyone.
My opinion is that Armstrong and the rest of the elite cyclists detest the lies and falsehoods that go along with the doping culture. By coming clean on what he knows and publicly discussing ideas to reform the sport, Armstrong could help make pro cycling a more honest and honorable profession.
If Lance could make SPORTS JOURNALISM a “more HONEST & HONORABLE” profession, then you’d have something.
Ludwig, you do not need to be called “crazy,” but you certainly have no understanding at all of Lance Armstrong, either the poster boy or the person himself.
susie b, Asking Lance to make sports journalism “a more honest and honorable profession,” is even more far-fetched than expecting Sally Jenkins to be an honest sports journalist.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bettini-calls-on-armstrong-to-confess
Just assuming, but this seems to be a “ballsy” position for Bettini to take. From the absurd to the sublime……………
LauraLyn – Sally Jenkins has more talent, skill, heart, & INTEGRITY than whoever the hell you are or ever will be.
And definitely more brains – my ‘sports journalism’ post was not really about Lance at all, it was a PUT DOWN about the vulturistic reptiles that now populate that “profession”, ESPECIALLY the, (cough, spit) “cycling media”.
And the LAST thing Lance did was “defraud” the government. LMAO! Their “investment’ into the US Postal team was the LAST time that entity ever MADE MONEY!
Want to talk about FRAUD? GRAND THEFT? Look no farther than your boy Floyd ‘Piece of Shit’ Landis. The MOST despicable American pro athlete since OJ.
And if YOU actually know Lance Armstrong as you keep trying to imply that you do, I feel even sorrier for LANCE.
(Sorry, Rant).
susie b. Oh my dear, please calm down. I had no idea you would be so offended by the truth.
As far as Sally Jenkins goes, “anything short of murder” (quoting her, as you surely know) pretty much says it all. That is the beginning (and end) of her journalistic integrity.
There was a specific clause in Lance’s contract with US Postal that explicitly said doping was not allowed. He signed the contract. (He has denied in the Federal courts before knowing about things he signed. He can probably even pretend that he didn’t know that taking performance enhancing drugs is not allowed, that it is illegal, that it is also illegal to transport illicit drugs internationally, that it is illegal to give others (force others) or ship or sell others illegal drugs, that it is perjury to lie in a US court, that it is wrong to create a cancer foundation based on lies, that it is wrong to call people who speak the truth to grand juries prostitutes and hoars, that it is wrong to destroy people’s livelihoods and private lives because they say the truth, that it is wrong to walk into a restaurant and start a fight because someone told the truth, that is is wrong . . . so many things Lance still denies knowing or doing.)
susie b. Your gracefulness with the English language speaks volumes for you. It is the exact same kind of language Lance uses. And I suppose Rant is just fine with it too.
This blog has been full of apologies and half-truths and ridiculous conjectures from the beginning to defend Lance and doping in sports.
ludwig,
You’re not crazy, as far as I know. I’m a bit more skeptical as to whether Lance has much concern with the future of cycling. He got out of it what he wanted — money and fame (or better put, notoriety). I think it would be great if he — and others of his era — did want to contribute to the betterment of the sport, but he’ll have to prove that to me through his actions.
Susie B.,
Let’s try to keep the discussion civil, OK?
LauraLyn,
My preference is that people be civil to each other, actually. I work a (currently more than) full time job on top of managing this site, so I’m not always johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to reacting to comments people make here.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that this site has ever been devoted to defending Lance, or doping in sports. Neither of those things has been a primary focus of this site. I’m no fan of Lance, and never have been.
That said, with or without the dope, he’s a far stronger rider/racer than I’ve ever been. I can (maybe) respect his ability and accomplishments, but not the way he got there.
As for defending the idea of doping as somehow good, you’ve got the wrong person. In the past I (foolishly, perhaps) defended someone accused of doping who subsequently turned out to be just as much a cheat as Armstrong, but don’t conflate that with defending doping, itself.
In Susie’s defense, Laura Lyn is a notorious troll, banned for life from CyclingNews forums for being relentlessly obnoxious.
As a well respected attorney once told me, there can be large differences between “wrong” and “illegal”, as well as “just” and “fair”. You may not like this. You may not like this at all. Sometimes you have to pick yourself up move on. Some of us won’t — or can’t — bring ourselves to do this.
Like it or not, life is all about game theory. People make choices and take their rewards and their lumps as they comes.
Me? I ain’t got no axe to grind. Just like to ride and enjoy Rant’s thoughtful posts. How about you?
So what about all the OTHER US Postal riders who were doping? I guess THEY get a get-out-of-jail-free pass becasue they are NOT Lance? Funny but sad…as THEY were doing the same exact thing as Lance…but everybody still loves them.
Snake, yes I was banned on CN Forum for objecting to Race Radio claiming, in a most unflattering way, that he had “chatted up” Sheryl Crow. I invite all readers here to view my contributions to the cyclingnews.com forum as well as all the abuse I received from people like Snake.
In fact, Snake, your post is no defense of susie’s obnoxious and insulting post but really a continuation of the same, which you yourself may have contributed to or learned from the abusive people at the clinic of cn forum. Your only possible reason to contribute such a lie was to damage the reputation and integrity of another, not contribute to the discussion Rant began here. This is the manner of the discussion at the clinic and it is fully supported by the cn editor and the moderators.
CyclingNews.com is a misogynous British tabloid that copy and pastes articles in an unapologetic fashion without providing sources or the opportunity to comment. It’s forum is occupied by the most unsavoury denizens in cycling, people as obnoxious and dishonest as Snake himself.
Apologies to Rant for this. But if people are going to hurl lies and insults here, they should be called to account. See the truth for yourself.
Snake, your sockpuppet trolling is what is obnoxious. Please stay with your RR god and do his bidding elsewhere. Women should be respected in this world as well.
I have rarely if ever attacked a commenter on this site, just the content of a comment. However, in this case, I have NO QUALMS in doing so. Sorry again Rant.
After 29 years, I am sick of this sport, especially the pseudo fans & the “media” that purports to cover it. The “fans” that really agitate my ire are the self-professed KNOW-IT-ALLS. The ones who “KNOW” what Lance said & did or did not say or do during the entire last 15 years, what he ingested or administered & most of all, whether he is a good or “evil” human being. These know-it-alls then proceed not to just pass judgment on Lance’s sporting accomplishments but on his worth as a human being. NEWSFLASH to these self-absorbed, jealous, embittered misanthropes – GOD DOES NOT SPEAK THROUGH YOU. You also were not elected nor appointed to be a Judge. So sit the hell down.
And then there’s the cycling “media”. Is there another group, beyond the bike & cycling accessory industries, that PROFITED more from Lance’s 7 Tour wins? Especially the American branch of this stench ridden ‘occupation’? It’s possible most of these entities would not even exist today without Lance’s wins & his cancer past. And it’s probable the American public would not be able to view daily LIVE broadcasts of the Tour de France, let alone any other bike race. Sure, they were ALL ABOARD the LAnce MONEY TRAIN when the going was good. But not a day now goes by without a vitriol-filled “article” or some witless tweet from this group of self-righteous apparent amnesia victims. Yes, they are frantically now trying to get people to forget or just not remind/inform them that THEY were either implicit in the cover-up of the true culture of this sport the last 30 years or were mere journalism “frauds”.
Meanwhile, what’s the word on BONDS, CLEMENS, SOSA getting into the MLB HALL OF FAME? Yeah, tell me again about the “crime” &/or evil of PEDS.
HYPOCRISY.
And I totally agree, short of murder, rape, child abuse, no “crime” commited by Lance can dwarf all the good that has come out of Livestrong. Just ask any of the hundreds of thousands aided. Just to be clear – I do not view the use of PEDs in cycling at least up through 2007 to be a “crime”. I don’t even view it as “cheating” as how can you cheat someone doing the exact same thing? I will not debate who & how many cyclists between 1990-2007 used PEDS, I look at the top 10-20 Tour finalists during those years & that’s all I need to know. And unlike many other cycling fans, I actually follow many other sports & see how the use of “performance enhancing drugs” is pervasive throughout all sporting competition. I also see how the TRUE (as in BIG MONEY) pro sports handle doping & anti-doping. It’s no surprise that the sports that are being decimated into nonexistence are the ‘poor’ sports. Of which, cycling is one.
“Hoar”? Lance was besmirching the aged? That’s a new one. 😉
And now that you mention it, all my college professors remarked about my “gracefulness with the English language” on my way to graduating summa cum laude. Thanks!
😉
Happy New Year to everyone, even the fans of Lance ;D
Susie,
You are totaly wrong, that is Lance who profited of sport and of the global system. He would never have been famous without sport.
If in 1999, corruption didn’t happen, i would have been already banned.
susie b, you certainly do have a bee in your bonnet about protecting a known liar and cheater. But ok, let’s leave that where it is, along with your summa cum laude. (Though I would love to know what university granted you such a degree and which “professors” commented on the elegance of your use of the English language. Was it MIT that also gave Lance a doctorate and then took it away?)
But you do bring us to the heart of the question that is most disturbing about this Lance hero: His use of cancer victims and their families to enhance his public reputation and increase his wealth while at the same time using his “philanthropy” to shield him from accountability for using drugs illegally, for transporting across the US states and internationally, for encouraging (“forcing” is the word sometimes used) other people to drug illegally, and for defrauding the US government, the US Postal Service, and many companies.
Someone wrote the following on the Oprah site today: “My friend’s 23 year old son was also being treated for testicular cancer at the same facility and at the same time. My friend’s son died. Lance Armstrong goes on to make mockery of his second chance and his life. I am so angry.”
But it is even worse than that. Lance used his fraudulent fame convince people dying of cancer and their families to believe in his lie as a last hope. It is not only that they gave obscene amounts of money to his “charity” (which still needs to be properly investigated), but that he took their faith and their souls at their most vulnerable time.
Frankly, this is what you should be thinking about. Not your presumed “gracefulness with the English language.”
Rant, is this a fair and open discussion? You withhold my comments here while allowing others to openly lie about me and insult me. Is there an agenda?
LauraLyn,
I was getting a pretty large amount of spam comments from your ISP a while back, so I had to implement some filtering. The filter places comments into moderation to be reviewed. When I have some time, I’ll revisit that.
Hey Rant – what about the big news today?! That Lance will apparently soon complete Step One of the Rehab Playbook – have a sitdown with Oprah. So, what’s the Over-Under on the tears? I’m thinking it doesn’t happen until O asks Lance how going from hero to “disgraced cheat” has affected his kids. If this is not seen on the broadcast, either it was cut or Oprah was replaced with a pod person.
And yet ONE MORE THING (just call me Columbo), that disgusts me about the pseudo fans & cycling “media” – for the past 4 months there have neverending DEMANDS from these folks that Lance “confess”. “CONFESS & REPENT thy lowly sinner!” When word broke over the weekend that he possibly was close to doing so, these idiots then trashed Lance for “once again hogging the limelight” & that it was “too little too late”. The guy cannot win. Except on the roads of FRANCE. 🙂
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. HISTORY. Then a MASTERS.
Hey Jean C – don’t be sad about not being “banned” in 1999, I’m sure Rant would fulfill your request here if asked. 😉
susie b, You summa cum laude now makes sense to me. I couldn’t understand before how a reputable institution of higher education could graduate someone with your English skills let alone award them a “summa cum whatever.”
But clearly the University of Maryland teaches something you and Lance have a close affinity and acceptance of, cheating: http://www.britecloth.com/maria/plagiarize.html
No doubt in my mind you are a summa UoM student.
Annnnnnnd just like clockwork, there was Betsy Andreu throwing a hissy fit online in a comments section that SHE & Greg Lemond were not contacted by Oprah.
Funny thing the past 4 months – all the Lance haters crowing how he is now “irrelevant” & “never needs be discussed forevermore” (a real-life Voldermort) & the sloooooow dawning on B.A. that trashing Lance was her sole claim to anyone giving a sh*t about what she has to say. Quandary!
LL – I graduated BEFORE there was an internet. I was but a genius toddler… Stop revealing your academic envy, I’d say it was beneath you but who’d believe me?
susie b, I agree with you that Lance is still relevant to cheating in sports and he needs to be discussed. It is also important that he comes forth and tells the truth so that people who still believe in the illusions he created understand the gravity of the wrongdoing and the suffering caused, both by Lance and those who supported his cheating.
I understand your argument regarding your summa. It is similar to Lance’s: Lance got cancer before the great era of EPO so how could doping have been involved? Doping just didn’t exist before that. And you graduated before learning to use the Internet so how could you have ever cheated your way to such lofty praises for the use of the English language?
No envy here. My summa’s were all earned with no cheating involved.
The gifts some toddlers are said to have in childhood turn out to be nothing more than pretense in adulthood.
Wow! I’m off here for a day or two and look what happens!
susie b, What exactly did Lance say publicly and repeatedly about Betsey Andreu (the wife of Lance’s former good friend and fellow US Postal Service rider Frankie Andreu)? I think this is more in the UoM vocabulary you learned to earn a summa than usually encountered in higher education.
What exactly is a “hissy fit?” Is it some kind of deep misogynistic attack on people who have suffered at the hands of a known bully?
Betsy Andreu is correct to want to have the truth told. Lance and his followers (people like you) deliberately sought to destroy the reputations and livelihoods of this woman and her husband because she would not tolerate doping and cheating and because she told the truth to a grand jury. Is that what you call a “hissy fit?”
Please susie b, stop playing this holier than thou, high-browed summa intellectual, god speaks through me role for Lance; and stop attacking the reputation of good and honest people with integrity for the benefit of saving a false god.
William,
I know the feeling. 🙂
LL – if GOD speaks through you, I’m going atheist right now.
And you should be thankful I don’t live in England, as if I did, I’d SUE YOUR ASS.
And where exactly did YOU graduate summa cum laude? Until today I don’t think you ever knew the honor existed let alone achieved it.
And for the record, I was on the Dean’s list every semester, was tapped for 2 Freshman year honor societies, awarded an Honors Convocation, & inducted into the Phi Kappa Phi honor society my Junior year. Plus, my tuition was paid in full as an “Honor scholarship”. All the while working 18-38/hrs a week in a on-campus job which paid off my “workship” that covered my room & board upfront each semester.
I did not continue on to get my Ph.D, but any time you want to compare undergrad achievements, BRING IT ON.
And finally – “if people are going to hurl lies and insults here, they should be called to account”. Consider yourself, LauraLyn, CALLED TO ACCOUNT.
And Rant – maybe no pigs but there sure is something else flying here.
She’s a troll Susie B, a STUDIED troll. Work with it only if you’re having fun. Otherwise, ignore, ignore, ignore. But, by the way, I love YOUR stuff. Puts it all into perspective for me.
William and Rant, I can’t agree with you more.
susie b, Did you get a chance to watch Betsey Andreu and Juliet Macur with Anderson Cooper on CNN last night? http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/01/betsy-andreu-and-juliet-macur-on-cnn/ Is this the same “whining hissy” you referred to above? The same woman Lance called “fat” and a “hoar?” Why would you participate in her ongoing character assassination as orchestrated by Lance? Perhaps an apology would be appropriate.
Juliet Macur is certainly no Sally Jenkins. Is she one of the people you had in mind when you said the following in your now patented graceful English: “But not a day now goes by without a vitriol-filled “article” or some witless tweet from this group of self-righteous apparent amnesia victims.”
Snake, every once in a while you appear on Rant’s blog only to obnoxiously insult people and spread lies aimed to compromise people’s reputation. You have not been able to make a single contribution to the topic, nor do you seem to even understand it. First I am a troll, then susie b is a troll. But really aren’t you just one of the many sockpuppet trolls at the cycling news forum used by the editors to destroy the reputation of any other publications regarding cycling? You and others are constantly trolling other articles, blogs, and forums being obnoxious and attacking people just to prevent civil and honest conversation intended to improve the sport of cycling and prevent doping among children. What you said above about susie b is pure hate speech and is entirely inappropriate. You could confess who you really are and apologize, as Lance eventually will. But probably Lance is even a better person than most cn trolls.
I probably should ignore it, but I can”t resist. That should be “whore”, not “hoar”.
susie b, Watch this: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2300016308/ If you have a decent bone left in you, then you will openly apologize to Betsy Andreu here. If you do not, join Snake and the people he admires in cycling in discussing Betsy Andreu here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18976 This is cyclingnews.com in its normal everyday “eloquent English” best. If you do not then believe it is one of the worst English tabloids, then I will accept your journalism credentials precisely as you described them.
William, “I probably should ignore it, but I can”t [sic] resist.” Such a clever speller you are. I bet you won tons of spelling-B’s when mommy and daddy watched you on stage in the second grade. Did you miss the quotation marks? Check the source, if you are clever enough to find it. You might then want to correct the grammar in your own rant above. From an educated legal point of view, it is . . . I’ll be nice . . . just you being you: completely missing the point. Still glad to have you back. Now you try to be nice and we can be friends.
you can put LL in the sin bin. I will not read her? comments, ever!
Rant, I know that your blog site is not a democracy. Nevertheless, I hereby begin a petition drive to have LauraLyn banned from this site. Your rules of order state that “Maligning someone just for the sake of being mean isn’t allowed. Rudeness, either.” We’ve all violated these rules at one time or another, but LauraLyn violates them continually, and despite warnings to desist.
It is too bad, because I think LauraLyn has something to say, and when I examine my prior personal debate with her, I think she won that debate (subsequent events proving what they’ve proven about Armstrong). But your rules do not provide an exception for rude commenters that have something to say.
Larry dear, your chivalry does you no honor. And just who did I malign, be mean to, or show any rudeness to? Is it wrong to defend myself against people attacking my person and integrity? Trying to shut someone up for being well informed and speaking the truth is the most undemocratic and un-American thing possible. Thinking that voting makes a democracy means you have no understanding of any democracy, from that of ancient Athens to present-day US. You would make a most excellent dictator – and clearly, like most dictators, your opinions turn out to be empty and baseless.
Your suggestion is abhorrent to all good societies and decent people. It goes to the depth of maligning my reputation; it is meanness and rudeness in the purest, most undemocratic form.
Have you not learned anything from this Lance Armstrong debacle? You are suggesting precisely the same kind of tactics he used to destroy people like Betsey Andreu, Frankie Andreu, Emma O-Reilly, Floyd Landis, so so many others: creating fear and shutting people up who speak the truth clearly. You have defended Lance Armstrong from the beginning without a care for due process, for the rights of victims, or for cancer survivors defrauded from millions – not to mention the overwhelming fraud against the American people, especially its youth. You have been unapologetic and rude toward me every time I showed how wrong and unethical you were behaving.
Vote all you wish. It has nothing to do with being right or honest or democratic. Refuse to listen to people with honesty and integrity, but rather insult their person as much and as deeply as you like. Have Rant ban me and then the next honest person here as well. Even where there is no democracy, good and honest people do dare to speak the truth. Your suggestion is pure cowardice and wrongness.
If you have something intelligent to contribute to this discussion without discrediting those who showed you wrong and unethical, then do so. If all you want to do is control the conversation and hide the truth, then have your vote and enjoy slandering good people.
LauraLyn, thanks for calling me “dear”. Also for proving my point.
For the record, I also think she has some interesting points. But, she’s a troll, through and through. Every post has to include a savage, unwarranted insult … or three.
Funny that she thinks she was booted from other forums because she was persecuted. Errr … no. That wasn’t it.
Hey, LL – still waiting to be enthralled with your illuminating list of academic achievements. You know what mine all have in common? The word HONOR. Of which you have NONE. Take you God complex somewhere else. Which reminds me, if this blog is so repugnant to you, why do you stick around? Part of your REFORM SCHOOL curriculum?
Let me guess, make a WILD conjecture, go out a limb here, Betsy talked about being in the hospital room with Lance? Bahdadumdum! No, I didn’t see BA on CNN last night & I don’t have the time to view your linked video right now. Maybe later.
Larry, Larry, Larry, WHEN will you ever stop “hiding the truth”?! This is where you say “Because YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” 🙂 Hey, I have a question for you. Let’s say there was someone who STOLE your money, yours & tens of thousands of other people’s money. The THIEF then testified in Federal court that he did indeed defraud all those people. The court then mandated he pay them back. So, here’s my question – can one of the victims still sue the convicted thief? AND all the people involved in his fraud & the conspiracy of silence around it? Is there a statue of limitations for the suit? How much would the suit cost the plaintiff (lawyers, etc)? What could the plaintiff recover – just the amount stolen or EXTRA for all the “pain & suffering” it has caused? I’m serious about this.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about another characteristic of the rabid anti-Lance faction & it is both equally perplexing & bordering on ridiculous (no, strike that, it is the capital of the country Ridiculous). That even when they have WON what they have been yammering on & on & on (& on & on & on…) about for the past 5-7 years – that Lance be stripped of his wins, have his cycling career, legacy, reputation, & a large portion of his fortune all destroyed, they are STILL not happy. Nope, not a bit. I’m thinking they want either his self-immolation or to spontaneously combust. Nope, don’t think that would satisfy them either. Even if they try & try & try & try…. (The funny-sad part here is I doubt these misanthropes know this reference, but I write to amuse the rest of ya. 🙂 ).
One more thing – I’d like to see the proof where Lance called or wrote about B.A. or anyone as a “H-O-A-R”. And no, this is not ‘hooked on phonics’, so it must be EXACT. Get your monkeys together & tell them to “FLY!” I’ll be waiting.
Oh & it’s been a while since I’ve been to the doctors but the last time I went, she said “your body is just full of DECENT BONES, keep up the good work!” Thanks for asking! 🙂
susie b, if you want to shoot the breeze here about law and Landis, fine. But if you are as serious as you sound, then please privately contact Rant for my email address. I promise I won’t try to solicit your business!
OK folks. Time to take a step back. I’m not going to get into who started it, but I’d like to see everyone start commenting and debating based on something other than what hidden motivations someone might have for saying one thing or another. Or whose academic achievements are more worthy. Or who swings a bigger one, if you get my drift.
If that means I have to block access for one or more individuals, I will. I’d rather not, and I’d rather everyone involved calm down and exchange views without injecting any sort or real or implied personal attacks, or any sort of speculation about why someone might disagree with your positions. If they haven’t specifically told you why they disagree, don’t jump to conclusions. Some people agree. Some people don’t. For those who don’t, it’s time to start disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Capish?
LauraLyn, who have you maligned here you ask? Oh…I’d say pretty much EVERYBODY who doesn’t agre with your OPINIONS (which you still toss out as factual bullet statements…did you notice how Ludwig says “my opinion here is”, and then YOU come back and blast him on how obviously WRONG he is, because only YOU know the truth about Lance).
I’m just hazzarding a guess here, but just maybe your lifetime ban over at Cycling News is from your repeated personal attacks on people….much like you do here every time you open your virtual mouth. And then you react with surprise when you have everybody up in arms against you. Do you not see that YOU are the one being rude?
Sorry Rant…I was typing (as I eat my lunch) at the same time you were..I’ll go back into my cave now…(was just catching up here, seems it’s been quite busy…and HOLY CATS what a hornets nest!)
Matt,
Sure is a hornets nest, eh? 😉
Actually, Rant – since it was stated here in a public forum that I ‘cheated’ my way to my college degree, I’d like this accuser CALLED TO ACCOUNT. And someone refresh my memory – is this slander or libel? However, if the sure to be awe-inspiring list of said accuser’s own academic achievements are listed here for all to review, I’ll drop my “case”.
And usually I joke, but on this I am serious. You can attack my views about Lance, cycling, the use of PEDS & how &/or if they should be penalized, that I consider Tim Tebow the MOST exciting damn QB ever (& er, the hottest 😉 ) & even my politics, but NO ONE can impugn my academic record or my honesty & get away with it. I worked too DAMN HARD.
And Larry, I will contact Rant for your email address as I have never been more serious. But it completely depends on the cost to me if I move forward. Thanks very much.
And personally, I was looking forward with MUCH excitement to the return of the Flying Monkeys with the “HOAR” evidence.
But, I guess we can’t always get what we want. (2nd reference).
susie b, slander is spoken defamation, and libel is any other kind of defamation, including written.
In my view, LauraLyn has not committed libel. First, to prove libel you have to show that you can be personally identified at the target of a defamatory statement. We don’t know who is “susie b” except as a commenter here (my personal favorite), and while I don’t know for certain, I don’t think libel law protects our blog identities.
Second, to prove libel you’d have to prove that you suffered some injury to your reputation. Need I say more?
susie b,
I caught that on the first reference. Just goes to show how old I am. 😉
Oh and susie b, since I covet your high opinion, and as we communicate in a purely verbal medium, let me say that I am taller than Tim Tebow, better looking, even more sincere in my religious faith, and a damn sight better at looking off my primary receiver.
MattC, you wrote: “So what about all the OTHER US Postal riders who were doping? I guess THEY get a get-out-of-jail-free pass becasue they are NOT Lance? Funny but sad…as THEY were doing the same exact thing as Lance…but everybody still loves them.”
What you wrote is simply factually wrong. So it is neither funny nor sad. It is just confusion. Firstly, USADA offered Lance Armstrong the same deal as all the other riders: cooperate and receive a reduced sentence. Now you may not understand this, but this is how justice systems work in every country in the world, including in cases of arbitration. Secondly, those who were honest and confessed to doping and, very importantly, stopped lying and cooperated with the investigation did not get “a get-out-of-jail-free pass.” They all received lighter sentences according to the WADA code.
In fact USADA kept this offer on the table right up until before it published the report. Lance chose instead to 1) try and bribe the USADA; 2) call it a witch hunt and create a public relations destraction; 3) spend needless US tax dollars on a federal court that essentially made him and his lawyers laughable; 4) use political leverage to stop the USADA from existing, thus wiping out the only American institution to protect honest athletes and help prevent our young athletes from becoming dopers; 5) defame people that worked for the USADA; 6) then pretend to just give up and ignore it all.
Recently Lance has been talking to USADA trying to get a deal for a confession. But one other part of your statement is also wrong: the other riders were not “doing the exact same thing.” Lance was not only doping, he was also trafficking in drugs nationally and internationally, pressuring young riders to use drugs, threatening people who told the truth (and making good on the threats), setting up a cancer charity to shield himself with public opinion, ruining not only the careers of other riders, but also their families and lives, ruining his own marriage and family, and defrauding the US government and private companies.
Also, not all other riders – on US Postal or other teams – were doping. Many many had the integrity and just good common sense not to. Many lost careers, podium places, and prize money to Lance and others who cheated. It is very wrong and disingenuous to suggest that all the riders on Lance’s team (or other teams) doped. It was not a level playing field (even among the dopers).
You are entitled to your opinion. But when you state it publicly in an open discussion, you can expect people will tell you it is empty and meaningless when your opinion is shown to be uniformed and wrong.
What Ludwig actually said is the following: “My opinion is that Armstrong and the rest of the elite cyclists detest the lies and falsehoods that go along with the doping culture.” Many cyclists have shown that they detest the lies and falsehood that accompany doping. They have come clean and told the truth. There are mixed feelings among us in the cycling community as to whether or not these people all can help to clean up the sport. Not once has Lance Armstrong ever shown even an inkling of not being comfortable as a serial liar. There is no reason at all to believe that Lance Armstrong cares about anything but himself. The known examples of how he behaved in his “charity,” how he behaved toward his friends and family, how he behaved toward his fellow riders, and how he behaved toward the enemies he made are far too many to enumerate. Read the USADA report, just to see the tip of the iceberg. So yes, Ludwig is entitled to whatever opinions or delusions he wishes to have. But when those are posted in a public discussion, like yours, it is correct that someone points out how baseless and meaningless they are.
Somehow people want to believe that Lance is largely a good person. So far the evidence in the public domain is scant to nihil regarding his goodness. If you have evidence, bring it forth and share it here.
Larry has in the past attacked the USADA and its employees, by name, without any reason, simply for doing what Congress asked and paid them to do. What he suggested was taken from the mouth of Armstrong and it was essentially lies. susie b has similarly attacked the person and character of Betsey Andreu, a true victim of Armstrong’s maliciousness. Both Larry and susie b do it publicly and for sport, it seems. No one else here has had the guts to call them to account. They have both let us see what kind of persons they are, and indeed they have found each other.
snake has never once contributed to a discussion here on Lance Armstrong. He only comes to malign people, insult, and show his rudeness. He is clearly sent as a troll by cyclingnews.com. They have done this to other sites as well. This is what snake signs up to and what cyclingnews.com published at the beginning of today after Betsy Andreu’s interview yesterday:
“I am in lurv. This stunning woman [Betsy Andreu] has beauty, class, evident honesty, and a voice that melts me. I would be happy and content for her to do unspeakable things to me. So much for fantasy world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T6eh…feature=relmfu” The comments that followed by snake and others should never be repeated because they are so lewd. This is British tabloid writing.
susie b, it was you who brought up your education and wanted to boast about your classroom achievements. The fact that UoM has taught students how to cheat and sanctioned it, does seem to be related to your views on Lance Armstrong. I never said you cheated. You only denied that you knew how to use Internet when at college. You did not say you didn’t cheat. Just as Lance (most often) said he did not fail any tests (he did). He rarely said he didn’t dope (but he did swear under oath he hadn’t).
Larry’s cowardliness and his undemocratic and un-American attitudes are the most Lance-like I have ever encountered outside of The Clinic and the editors of cyclingnews.com, but then at least they are not (all) Americans.
Aww, now Larry – don’t you go trashing my boy Timmy’s throwing ability! 🙂 However, if you are truly a version of an older Tebow clone, I’d forgive you anything. And just so you know, between you & Rant, my opinion does not go much higher. Even if you have smashed my visions of monetary compensation for being so outrageously wronged. Sigh. And just so ya’ll know, I would have spread the ‘reward’ around. For all here who have been subjected.
Too bad we’re not in England.
And Sir snake – thank-you for your advice & the compliment. Valiant attempt to keep me from going off the rails. Much appreciated. 🙂
One final thing – yesterday I saw the following comment on another wbebsite from one of the Anti-Lancers & seriously almost spit Diet Pepsi out my nose – that Lance is so heinous because he “hogged all the worldwide fame, GLAMOUR & MONEY” in pro-cycling. Yes, remember back to 1999, all the GLAMOUR & MONEY in cycling. That there is ANY worldwide fame, glamour (sorry, this still makes me giggle) & MONEY is SOLELY due to LANCE being the cancer survivor who won the Tour.
Ooops, one more thing. What is a “flaming positive” & do you think is there any connection to the Flaming Lips? Talk amongst yourselves. Um, here. 😉
It is NOT ‘UoM’, it is UM.
And I did not say I did not know how to “use the internet” (go back & READ), I said the INTERNET did NOT EXIST when I was in college. Not even in Al Gore’s head.
And hopefully for the last time, *I* was referencing YOUR COMMENT about my “gracefulness with the English language”.
Seriously, you should adjust your meds.
And if the “rules” are that one must state a negative for it to actually be true – “I am not sleeping with Tim Tebow”. Alas.
susie b, the Internet has existed since the 1950’s. Just how old are you?
This was not a discussion of rules; it was a discussion of telling the truth. I suppose UM failed there too.
I cannot find anything graceful in your use of the English language. If your teachers say they did, then you can believe them if you want.
Discussing here who you are or who you are not sleeping with is simply distasteful, especially for someone who went to college before Internet existed. I don’t think any sane person would have accused Tim Tebow of sleeping with you. It is not on the same level of discussion as that of Lance Armstrong doping.
Could we perhaps stop hearing about your education and your extra-curricular interests, as well as the blossoming soul-mate mutual envy with Larry, and get back to discussing how we can prevent others from becoming victims of doping in cycling and clean up a sport so many of us love and practice.
And as for Larry & his “cowardliness, undemocratic & un-American attitudes”, you have now truly revealed your woeful level of intelligence. No wonder you keep ignoring the request to state your academic achievements. You have none.
And Larry – can you research those libel laws again as pertaining the internet?
And LL – why don’t you go start your own blog? Surely, there must be, er, one other person who would converse with you. Even without renumeration. Possibly.
As for me – still waiting for the Return of your Flying Monkeys. The clock is a’tickin.
Ah yes, I remember all the “Computer Science” majors lugging their boxes of cards around campus. If ONLY they had known the “internet” was there, just waiting for them. Too bad they had to be linked to the MAINFRAME in designated rooms on campus. Of course, it did cut down on all the TROLLS.
susie b, Obviously you still do not know what the Internet is.
Regarding trolls, don’t worry, there were plenty of snakes in the grass even then.
Anything you might want to contribute on Rant’s blog? Or were you just trolling?
I don’t know, the chances of my ‘sleeping with Tebow’ are probably higher than anyone wanting to join you on a blog. Show of hands? Anyone? Anyone?
Asperger Syndrome. Pity.
Sorry Rant – a little Sympathy for the Devil, maybe?
susie b,
Use all your well-learned politesse, or…
Rant, regarding winning the lottery: Lance will confess. I did overestimate him after he lost his Federal case and thought he would be smart enough to confess then. He didn’t. The damage is now irreparable, for himself and for his “foundation.”
If it was up to Lance himself, he would not confess. He is so arrogant and so self-consumed that he would not. But if you watch the events unfolding now, you can see the stage is being set: Juliet Macur’s article. (Clearly she was used.) The appearance of Tygaert on CNN two nights ago, and the upcoming appearance of Lance on Oprah. There is a mating dance going on here, however ugly it may be.
Do not expect “the confession” on Oprah. Anything he says to Oprah cannot count. It is simply part of the dance, whether he admits something or not. The only person he can confess to is Travis Tygaert. Lance knows this. Travis knows this. Both are playing hardball.
Lance’s confession could potentially bring down a lot of people and organizations, including the UCI, the IOC, USACycling, Ironman, and even his own Lance Armstrong Foundation (which was at the very least complicit in the cover-up).
Lance is finished for life with sports. He can win as many local carnival marathons and triathlons as he likes. No one will take him seriously. He also is finished with sponsors. No one would ever touch him. In fact, you could expect companies might even pay him not to wear their clothes (see the example of Jersey Shore).
Lance is surely under a great deal of pressure from the Lance Armstrong Foundation to confess, so that they can again start to receive the kind of money they grew used to. But he has to know that that Foundation will no longer exist in five years.
Many people say it is dangerous for Lance to confess because of all the lawsuits pending against him. However, if he does not confess he will need to continue to pay people off in out-of-court settlements, and then the lawsuits will never end. If he goes to court he will have to confess. So for monetary/financial reasons he is indeed better off confessing out of court, and then settling and fighting what he can. At least in five years there should be an end to it then.
The real reason he will confess is to avoid going to jail. Now is too late to ensure he will not go to jail, but it is his best hope to avoid prison time or at least reduced prison time.
As I have said all along, Lance Armstrong’s best friend now is Travis Tygaert. Both Lance and Travis know this.
Enjoy the mating dance.
Hi,
De Canio has stepped in with :
From his website : http://stolenunderground.com/
Jean C., thank you. Finally another thoughtful and honest contribution to the discussion here.
De Canio says it all so well. Really, a confession from Lance will now always come too late for those he injured (and there are many De Canio’s out there) and a confession from him will never be full or complete or heartfelt. It will be hollow.
I so much appreciate you posting this. If you have a source you could share as well, that would be welcomed.
Wow…LL, you are really something.
“MattC, you wrote: “So what about all the OTHER US Postal riders who were doping? I guess THEY get a get-out-of-jail-free pass becasue they are NOT Lance? Funny but sad…as THEY were doing the same exact thing as Lance…but everybody still loves them. What you wrote is simply factually wrong. So it is neither funny nor sad. It is just confusion.”
What you forgot to add here is that this is YOUR opinion.
“You are entitled to your opinion.” Oh gee, thank you very much Queen of all knowledge! But I’m pretty sure I have that entitlement even without YOUR permission.
“But when you state it publicly in an open discussion, you can expect people will tell you it is empty and meaningless when your opinion is shown to be uniformed and wrong.”
Again, this is YOUR opinion.
“So yes, Ludwig is entitled to whatever opinions or delusions he wishes to have. But when those are posted in a public discussion, like yours, it is correct that someone points out how baseless and meaningless they are.”
And yet again, according to YOUR opinion.
I could go on and on and on, as your ENTIRE comment (and pretty much every one you’ve ever made here) is nothing but YOUR opinion. It’s really interesting to know that your’s is the only one that is correct…everybody else (who doesn’t agree with you I mean) is “wrong, delusional, baseless, sad, confusion” (and much more).
You certainly have the right to YOUR own opinion, and to discuss why you THINK why your opinion is correct, but you do NOT have the right to attack people, and you seem to have no concept of this point as you just DON’T STOP!
I can easily see why you got banned, and you just don’t get it. QUIT ATTACKING PEOPLE FOR HAVING AN OPINION THAT DOESN’T MATCH YOURS! Making personal attacks is NOT a discussion. There is NO NEED for you to say anything about another person. Just state YOUR opinion and move on, leaving out the part that YOU THINK the other person is a complete idiot.
However, I have no faith that you have even have one tiny glimmer of understanding this point, as you are the energizer bunny of personal attacks….just keep going, and going, and going…
I thought we went over all this a few months ago, and you finally went somewhere else for awhile and people here could discuss things without the attacks. How utterly sad to have you back.
Trolls love it when you yell at them MattC. It’s a pathetic game. And, they often team up to win it. She might not be just one person.
She’s well practiced in the stupid craft. Don’t try to point out the error of her ways, she knows exactly what she’s doing. And don’t take the bait (unless you want to).
LauraLyn,
That’s an interesting analysis of why Lance will confess. Assuming he’s not so arrogant to think that he can go through the motions and dance around the edges of a confession without actually making one, you may well prove to be right.
I have long believed that most if not all changes in one’s life, be it philosophical or physical, 1st start with a Tipping Point. Diets, exercise programs, studying, saving & investing, starting or stopping drinking & drugs, & even one’s beliefs & values. Of course, some people spend their entire lives never contemplating anything beyond the next meal or f*ck. They parrot beliefs they heard from their parents, schoolmates, or increasingly during the last few decades, from the talking heads on TV or from those countless time sucks found on the internet known as blogs, forums, or websites (ahem) & never really think an original thought.
Where am I going with this? Well, it’s dawned on me I reached a Tipping Point several months back on one ‘subject’ discussed here ad nauseum & am about to reach another TP on the main topic of this blog – doping in sports. I was just telling Rant the other day how my beliefs & feelings about doping & anti-doping efforts have almost completely transformed over the past 7 years. And oh, what a long, slow, painful slog it has been.
Matt & I go back more than 6 years. He’s one of the nicest & most enthusiastic men I have ever known, even if only “virtually”. He is truly the Best of Men. About 4-5 years back, we got into a discussion about doping on another blog & it was the closest we’ve ever come to being “testy” with each other. Matt seemed to want to scrap dope testing entirely & I was aghast. AGHAST! But, “Matt!” I ranted, don’t you want a “level playing field?!” & “don’t you know doping harms the health of the athlete & you know this just seeps down to the college & the high school levels!” Think of the poor “innocent children!”. Even now, I wince at my then shrill, pompous tone. At that time, I had only begun to educate myself on the true level of doping in ALL sports & you know what they say – “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”.
Since then, a lot has happened – I (along with tens of thousands of others) found out I was defrauded of my MONEY for what I thought was a cause for “justice”, saw more & more athletes of one of my beloved sports pop positive & I watched the wildly varied ways they were dealt with & accepted (or not) back into the sport, I then looked on in wonder how the REAL pro sports dealt with the exact same “problem” & was shocked at the complete difference to the “Olympic” type sports, I’ve listened & read to not just a groundswell but a tidal wave of attempts to demonize those who used PEDs, oh, but not in ALL sports, oh NO, just the “poor” ones, the ones only a handful give a shit about except every 4 years & thus have no real economic power.
Just a few weeks ago I read a good article about PEDS in sports & the author basically said we should just stop testing & let the athletes use whatever. I still could not agree. For the same reasons I threw back at Matt. But, here we are. Another few weeks of reading/listening to Tygart (it’s spelled TYGART) pat himself on the back as the virtuous defender of “sport” when I know he does not give a crap about cycling or if the wheels literally come off the sport tomorrow for good.
Another few weeks of listening to/reading the rabid, obsessive Anti-Lance faction continue to demonize & destroy a man, to feverishly attempt to paint him as some Al Capone-Keyser Soze hybrid.
And I’m done. Done with that sport anyway. Won’t continue to watch it slowly & then all at once, cease to exist. I have almost no respect left for anyone in the sport. Not the gutless ex-“teammates” of Lance Armstrong, not all the HUNDREDS of other pro cyclists of the past 3 decades that doped & now pretend someone else MADE them do it, not the team managers or owners who only cared about results, “RESULTS or you’re OUTTA HERE!”, not the pathetic UCI, who SHOULD have handled the anti-doping itself like a REAL pro sport & NOT allow individual countries to weigh in & most especially, not give an outside anti-doping oligarchy ‘the One Ring’.
And lastly, the more the Lance haters try to demonize Lance, the more I want him to go on Oprah & tell Tygart, Pound, the UCI, the IOC, Betsy A, his ex-teammates, some but not all his fellow cyclists on the roads, & his pseudo fans & other detractors to just FUCK OFF. But that’s a selfish, childish fantasy. Lance Armstrong does not live to be MY anti-hero. It’s funny, I used to just admire his accomplishments on the bike & with Livestrong & I desperately tried to overlook his ‘defective’ character flaws. Thanks to “LauraLyn” & her ilk, I no longer care that he’s a son of a bitch.
Whether Lance ‘confesses’ does not matter to me. I know what cycling was like before he arrived & know what it’s like now. He can apologize for being so selfishly focused on a goal that he rarely treated others as he demanded to be treated. He can apologize to true fans of cycling & even to the majority of Americans who only saw him as a hot sporting hero (& NEVER really watched or understood the sport at ALL) for letting them believe that only a few bad ‘eggs’ in his sport used performance enhancing drugs. Doesn’t matter nor is it of any relevance to me. But if he apologizes to Betsy Andreu or the internet troll known as “LauraLyn”, BUH-BYE Lance! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
And Rant, I have one suggestion for your blog. If it becomes apparent that a commenter’s parental units must have had to PAY neighborhood kids to play with their child, that commenter goes on probation. If probation is “violated”, the offender is “sent to jail” (banned from the site).
Susie b,
Lance has request the “head” of Bordry, of Clerc, of journalists,… and so he ruined lifes of some of them (Anderson) to hide his sins. You can add Lemond, the Andreu, O’Reilly,…
You are out of reason, you are just right about cycling being not like that before Lance, such mafia didn’t exist at that level.
susie b,
That’s an interesting suggestion. Not sure how I’d actually determine if someone’s parents had to pay the neighbor kids to play with their child. As my dad used to say, “I’ll take it under advisement.”
Rant – it’s pretty evident I would say.
Jean C – you missed my point. Cycling was a puny, economically poor, unimportant sport outside of a handful of European countries until a cancer survivor/Tour winner dragged it to worldwide notice. And MONEY. There was DOPING throughout the sport going back 40-50 years, if not from the very beginning. Along with all other kinds of cheating. Hardly a “virtuous” sport.
As for Lemond, he’s a WHINING, self-absorbed SOB. I used to detest Hinault because of his lies to GL & now I think he must have a great deal of self-control not to have hauled off & beaten GL to a pulp.
As for Frankie (NOT Betsy) Andreu – I admit to a bit of “schizophenia” in how I’ve viewed Frankie the past 14 years. Until the past few months, I have completely isolated him from his wife (in my mind), because I have adored him for years. No, not some kind of crush, but for what he brought to my enjoyment of televised cycling. Love his personality & unadulterated enthusiasm, love his fast talking & Michigan accent, loved him on the US Postal Tour teams, loved him on OLN/Versus & the insight & enthusiasm he brought there, loved him in his various written/video Tour blogs (from when he rode the Tour to his time with OLN), & for the past 2 years, especially loved him with James Startt in the ‘Tour Talk’ daily videos on Bicycling.com. One of the things Lance allegedly did that I have always had the most problem with is that even though he & Frankie were close friends, he basically jettisoned him from the Tour team & then the US Postal team because he just wasn’t good enough anymore. ‘Where’s the loyalty?’ I’ve wailed. Well, in sports as in business, it’s ‘WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY’ that is the “Golden Rule”. This is why, if I was a billionaire & able to fulfill a fantasy of owning a top pro cycling team, I’d be an abject failure. Far too sentimental.
Anyway, I don’t think I can continue this “chinese wall” as B.A. has made it almost impossible to drown her out. Doesn’t really matter anymore since I won’t be following the sport.
But let me be clear – Frankie doped. There was no gun to his head. His wife found out & did NOT run to the authorities right then & there. Which you would think that a modern day, real-life Lady of the Lamp/defender of “Truth” would do. As for having a “ruined” post-cycling career? You mean between stints on the Postal team & with OLN? And being hand-picked by Lance to be his daily Tour video interviewer during his comeback? Yeah, it’s been vicious. But, I don’t really know what jobs he may have gone after & perhaps due to his wife’s growing obsession to bring Lance “down”, maybe Lance did encourage the employers to look elsewhere. Don’t know, don’t care. She & Frankie are lucky Lance wasn’t Steve Jobs.
Rant, I don’t see a middle ground for Lance. He will need to keep denying (lying) or he will need to tell the truth. The path of denial has been closed in front of his face. The path of truth is the only one left to him. No one will accept that he comes to the confessional with a story full of half-truths. Tygart has made that clear.
Of course, always keep in mind in life that you could be surprised.
Jean C and Rant: here is another excellent essay by Matt Decanio:
Lance Armstrong Oprah Show Official Comment
by Matt DeCanio
Years ago when I was fired from pro racing for posting anti-doping articles on this website I wrote to Oprah and many other shows trying to get them to cover the facts on doping in pro cycling. They all ignored me. Years later I find it ironic that now Oprah is hosting a show with Lance Armstrong who will no doubt use this platform to bolster his already lucrative lifestyle and power.
The important thing for people and fans around the world to understand is that Lance has been allowed to dope by both USA Cycling and the USOC in the past. My meeting with Dr. Wade Exum former head of the doping control system at the United States Olympic Committee taught me a lot about secrets. Deep dark secrets held by big time powerful sporting organizations.
Lance has yet to tell anyone the truth and has a track record for lying to the fans, to people with cancer, to his peers in the pro peloton, to the media, and to everyone he has ever told that he has not used performance-enhancing drugs or a cheat code which has included slander, oppression, bullying, destroying, and showing no mercy for anyone who has attempted to rid the beautiful sport of cycling of its disease which is doping.
Regardless if Lance does finally admit to doping, nobody should respect him. Nobody should give him the applause, because he needs to feel the dead silence of no cheers. He needs to understand that his attempt to lead the entire next generation of cyclists into a life of doping, cheating, fraud, and corruption is over. His power over the industry to destroy brands of anti-doping supporters, careers, and to play God in our sport is over. Just as many great dictators of the world have fallen, Lance has fallen. He does not deserve a hand to get back up. He deserves to be punished.
He is not a champion and never was. A true champion will deny the cheat codes of the game and will defeat those who use the cheat codes. It simply does not count when you cheat, because your accomplishments are not real.
The degree which Lance Armstrong may admit to will never be 100%, he will always be holding some truths back. You have to understand that a lot of people have allowed Lance to win on doping products. Some of these people are most likely also the ones who have sent death threats to anti-doping icons around the world. These are truly evil people, and Lance Armstrong was their poster boy only releasing him of his sponsorships after a long and successful career of sporting fraud.
The evidence will continue to show and prove that Lance should have been removed from the sport years ago. But his story was too easy to sell to the world and there was too much money to be made. Much in the same way as insider trading and the other white collar crimes of society there is no difference in the business of professional sports. I hope through all of this we can analyze the facts and see that crimes in sports such as doping are not any different from any other kind of white collar crime.
The fact is Lance has stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of prize money, contract money, and endorsement money through doping which should have been in the hands of many other hard working and real athletes who have made equal if not a greater sacrifice in the world. But even worse he has destroyed the dreams of countless racers from around the world, truly negatively impacting their lives and destroying their opportunities. Instead giving contracts to riders such as Ivan Basso who was involved in Operation Puerto while racing on the Discovery Channel who now also ironically is giving Lance a voice on Oprah.
May we never forget these actions and never forget the more deserving and righteous athletes who had to watch horridly as Lance defended and signed Basso to a huge contract. Not only did righteous athletes bare witness to this but so did the youth who wore their yellow LIVESTRONG bracelets as Hitler’s youth once wore swastikas (?), all signing up mentally to become future dopers and to follow their false icon.
I know 100% that the youth loved Lance and hated me because they told me to my face, and they told me in many letters when I promoted clean sports. Behold the true power of Lance when the young racers despise anti-doping champions to doping champions.
Lance Armstrong used powerful lawyers and political advisors who held White House positions to slander nations such as the gracious nation of France who gave Lance her best and also their wonderful citizens who cheered for him while back home he called them assholes and claimed they were witch hunters crying wolf to save his own hide.
This slander negatively altered how Americans viewed the world as we now have to work harder to repair these wounds. Is there really a greater crime than to rape the world of our peace of mind that will now make us question every leader and sporting icon for the rest of our lives? Through it all we all have become wiser and stronger, and we will bounce back, and I only hope that when a real athlete wins without doping that we don’t assume he is another Lance Armstrong.
Sickness such as Cancer is a horrible thing. But death is a part of life and so is sickness. All of us one day will have to meet death and we will have to come to terms with sickness, disease, and suffering until we leave our planet behind. I for one have had a great sickness in my life which included being the sickest child in the University of Virginia. I too have suffered and have overcome a life threatening illness. Life is a constant struggle to live. I understand pain and suffering, and as a former member of the USA Cycling Team and winning professional cyclist I also understand how hard the sport of cycling is. Believe me it is a lot harder to win a UCI yellow pro jersey clean than to dope and boost your wattage by 25%.
But out of everything I have experienced in life, nothing was harder than not being able to live my dreams or having the ability to continue my professional career because of the strength and power Lance Armstrong had over the industry and the sport. By simply posting an anti-doping article about Lance on my website it cost me my career, my dreams, and sponsors Sierra Nevada and Ofoto.
Lance has promoted himself as the man who has lived strongest. But in reality he has never lived real, and living real is the hardest thing to do in this world. Never has Lance had to wash dishes, cleaning up maggots, while watching the Tour de France on T.V. seeing all of the faces who have slandered, oppressed, and put him in this position of hard labor as I have. Lance has never had the feeling of not being able to live his dreams, maybe only slightly now with him losing his ability to race triathlons.
I will promise you one thing if Lance really knew how hard the lives have been of those he has affected within the sport and the turmoil he has caused amongst us he would he would be writing a direct apology letter to each and all of us. But Lance is so far self absorbed into the legend he truly believes he is that he is no closer to doing that than winning me back as a fan.
Please think about the actions of Lance Armstrong as a man and understand a great champion will always work to help the world, the sport he loves, his family, friends, and the lives of those who admire in a selfless manner regardless of the outcome.
If it wasn’t for the countless hours and sacrifices made by all of the anti-dopers from around the world in the sport of cycling Lance would still retain his undeserved status as the greatest cyclist the world has ever seen. Instead he will be remembered as a dictator of a sport that he used to rise to power and with this power he unleashed a wrath of evil bestowed upon all who dared to oppose him.
Thank you for your support of the real anti-doping movement and of the sport of cycling. I believe we are the on the right path to saving our sport but we have a lot more work to do and I wish you will join us and not give up on the sport of cycling.
Let the investigations continue and if the results are total reform of our anti-doping systems than I declare a victory for the future athletes and fans around the world. Let’s end doping once and for all.
Sincerely,
Matt DeCanio
http://stolenunderground.com/
Susie, we live in a world of thinking on the extremes. A few years ago, Armstrong was the model of everything an athlete should be. Now he’s the reason why cyclists doped. The truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes. I keep saying: if Armstrong had died of cancer in the late 1990s, the history of doping in cycling would have played out pretty much the same. My personal disappointment with Armstrong is when I consider his unique power and stature, and imagine all he might have done to combat doping. Yes, Armstrong is being singled out for unique punishment, and how could it be otherwise? Armstrong made himself a unique figure. I don’t feel sorry for the guy. If he’s a victim, he’s a victim of a system that he might have changed for the better.
What we do as sports fans is a different question. PEDs aren’t going away. The most interesting and under-reported aspect of the Armstrong affair is the admission of the anti-doping folks that we cannot rely on drug testing to tell us who is competing clean. While we were focusing on the science that convicted Landis, the anti-doping folks rewrote their laws to focus on national and international police action. If as LL says Armstrong is going to jail, he won’t be the last athlete to go. It was one thing to tolerate cycling when I was told I was watching a bunch of suspected dopers, but it’s quite another when I’m told I’m watching a group of suspected criminals.
Cycling is not so much different from other sports, as it is AHEAD of them. This is where every sport is eventually heading. Cycling may be different in that the story of doping has become more important than the cycling itself. The anti-doping fury that Lance is facing is simply THERE – he’s just the current target, and eventually the target will shift to someone else. The fury is self-perpetuating – the folks who defended Landis eventually came to want to see all cyclists treated like Landis, just as those bruised by the anti-Armstrong crusade will want to see all future doping cyclists treated like Armstrong.
I won’t argue: this is discouraging. But sport isn’t going away simply because I feel discouraged. PED use isn’t going away either. It isn’t going to help if the fans who understand this issue the best are the ones who walk away.
“You can’t say, ‘I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. But now you’ve got me, so I’ll come in and admit it and get a break.'” USADA attorney Richard Young
Lance is in a tight spot with USADA. It was his own doing. He will have to go to Tygart with more, much more, than simply a mea culpa.
Prison time for Lance appears increasingly possible.
LauraLyn,
So far, there’s no public movement by the feds or relevant state prosecutors to bring a criminal case against Lance — which is not to say nothing is happening. Out of curiosity, are you someone who’s in a position to have direct knowledge of whether something like that is definitely in the works?
Rant,
No, I don’t have inside information. And I would never be interested to have it and even less to pretend to do so. There are a number of sockpuppets who pretend that, and they are damaging to cycling but even more damaging to society. These people are as arrogant and wrong in their all-consuming hatred as Lance is arrogant and wrong in his all-consuming lying. A good society is an open society, where people are allowed to speak honestly.
The most probable explanation for the Feds dropping their case against Lance last year in January is that the complexity of a criminal case was much greater than that of a sports arbitration case. Further, Lance had already manipulated public opinion and public officials (himself and through the misuse of his foundation) calling it all a witch hunt and himself a victim.
It is important to remember that the Feds never cleared Armstrong or said it was the end of the case. They simply said they were no continuing it (at that time).
Now that case is much more interesting for the Feds and much more winnable. Lance still has a great deal of public sympathy (the vast majority of the public only know the Lance he showed them, not the one who was greedy, cruel, and inhuman while being a cheat). However, the public generally would like to know what happened and if they were really deceived. So the Feds have a good opportunity to bring the case again. Even Travis Tygart does not know what the Feds have in mind now. It is still as much a political decision as it is a criminal concern for the Feds.
Lance’s greatest threat, almost ironically, now comes from Floyd Landis, who has a whistle blower’s case recently launched again Lance for defrauding US Postal and the US Government for approximately $30 million. Keep in mind that the public got all in a huff (following Lance’s PR stunt) about the USADA receiving just $10 million a year to keep all Olympic sports in America clean. A paltry sum compared to the amounts of money spent on doping and cheating in any once given Olympic sport (perhaps even on any one given team).
The acts of perjury Lance committed may have exceeded the statutes of limitations. However, civil suits can (and inevitably will) address the times Lance lied under oath. Fraud can also be criminally prosecuted and Lance is vulnerable here on many counts.
Lance cannot avoid a confession, one way or another. So he is now looking for the best deal he can get on it. He will spend whatever credit he still has with the American public trying to wrestle the best deal he can from Tygart. In the end, he will have no choice but to tell the truth.
So many people have thrown Lance under the bus, he is asking himself every night why he doesn’t just walk into Tygarts office, turn on the tape recorder and burn all those on the bus. It could be that only when Johan turns his back on his children’s godfather that this happens.
Larry – it’s cycling that I see going away. At least as any kind of pro sport where the athletes can make enough money to live on. The American CA & CO races may last 1-2 more years. Depends on the crowds & most especially if they can get ANY sponsors that want to be affiliated. Two years ago, I would have been gutted when faced with that reality. Now, I just don’t care. But unfortunately, I don’t just feel numbness or indifference, I feel hatred & disgust. That a sport allowed itself to be destroyed, that many of the participants & overseers have been gutless, grasping, idiots. And lastly, that they let such despicable pieces of shit like “LauraLyn” & her despicable ilk to control the dialogue. That these “missionaries” of HATE, half-truths & LIES keep trying to convince the country that one man, an athlete in a TINY sport is a real life Satan is the CRIME that should be convicted.
And for the record, cancer survivors have NOT been “defrauded from millions”. Just one more lie. And as many made up examples that some LOON can drag in here, I actually KNOW many cancer sufferers & their families that have been helped enormously by Livestrong. They got assistance they could not get ANYWHERE else.
And just FYI, the ex-teammates that “cooperated” with USADA? They most certainly were handed a “get out of jail free pass”. Their laughable ‘sentence’ was for 6 months mostly during the sport’s OFF SEASON. What a FARCE. Of course, future employment is looking a little shaky for Levi right now. Tygart knows SO much about cycling that he was “surprised”. LMAO.
And before I forget – one thing about Lance that has been fairly well established – if you weren’t on his Tour de France team he barely knew you existed on US Postal & definitely didn’t care much. That he would “pressure” any of those riders to dope is yet another lie. Quite a few of the ex-Posties have exclaimed “What drugs, I didn’t see no drugs! I wasn’t offered any!”
And finally, Rant – if you do not ban the most obnoxious, self-righteous, pontificating, lie-spewing, Asperger LOON that goes by the name “LauraLyn”, my time here has sadly come to an end. It’s your blog party of course, I just don’t like that it’s been hijacked by one of your ‘guests’, so will take a break.
Life is too DAMN SHORT to be subjected to a such a pompous, puffed up ASS.
At least I could ignore Jean C all these years as I couldn’t understand what the hell he was trying to say.
Rant,
One more thing we might consider with regard to Lance confessing. These past few months have been the most extended time in his life that he actually had a break from training and competition. Let us hope that this has provided him with some time to reflect on the person he has become.
I’ve read this blog on and off for some time, and from my perspective SusieB is as obnoxious and nasty a troll as they come. Larry and Rant continuously praise her and encourage her delusions and lack of humility. At first it was basically a clique thing—they bonded in delusional belief in Floyd Landis and in their belief in the fraud-spouting TBV blog. As soon as Floyd changed his tune and started behaving ethically, they did a 180 and became Floyd’s most outspoken haters.
Larry and SusieB’s role on Rant’s blog was to drive away dissent and/or realistic views on doping in cycling to maintain the clique/believer atmosphere.
In all honesty, LauraLyn, perhaps you should take it somewhere else. There aren’t many newbies to be educated here. It’s too bad you were banned from CN-Forums–perhaps you should participate on the Velonews formus or Daily Peloton.
ludwig,
Since I set up this blog, I’ve been the only person who administers the site and who moderates the discussion.
At times, some of the people who comment here have tested my patience. But mostly, I’ve refrained from deleting or removing comments, believing it better to allow people to state their opinions freely — even when they are the minority view on this site, and even when I disagree with what they have to say.
Depending on the particular subject, I’ve seen people take positions that I’ve been surprised by. You’re a good example. Back when the main discussion was Landis and his case, I would never have thought you’d suggest that Lance Armstrong would actually care about the sport’s future. I would’ve expected (and if I recall, actually saw) you to suggest that Armstrong was one of the roots of all evil in the cycling world. And yet, a few days back, you took a position contrary to what I would’ve guessed.
Susie B and Larry have every right to be angry at Floyd Landis. Susie especially, because she (like this fool) gave a lot of money to help with his defense, believing that he was innocent. Now, if we’d followed your advice, we never would have done so. But at the time, I honestly believed the evidence wasn’t enough to prove that Landis did what he was accused of. Maybe I was deluded. Having heard him recant (mostly), I’ll now take him at his word that he was doping like many others in the pro ranks. Of course, Landis does still maintain he didn’t use testosterone during the 2006 Tour. If that’s true, then the lab and the anti-doping agencies just caught a lucky break.
As far as the whole Landis thing goes, I don’t know why I’m not as angry at Floyd as Susie B. is. Arguably, I should be angrier, given how much energy I put into advocating for his cause. I don’t believe I’ll get my money back, although I hope Susie B. gets hers back. And I hope she’s one of the first. For me, it’s the old story about a fool and his money. If I did get it back, I’d donate that money to a worthwhile charity so that at least some good comes from the whole experience.
But I digress. As I said, I’m the only person overseeing this site. My choice to create this thing. And I’m not complaining — too much.
It’s a free Internet, so people can come and go as they please. I prefer it when people keep the discussion focused on the issues, rather than engaging in personal attacks or insults. There are times when the discussion is flying fast and furious, that it’s a bit hard to keep up with all the comments. And given that I work a day job in addition to this “enterprise,” I suspect you understand that I may not see comments for a good long while after they’ve been posted.
I could force all of the comments to go through moderation first, but frankly, I don’t have time for that. I could require that only registered users leave comments. But both those solutions get in the way of a free discussion. I could close comments completely. But half the fun of this site is seeing how people react and seeing how the discussion develops once I put a post up.
Unfortunately, the occasional over-the-line comments get through. Maybe that puts a damper on the discussion here. I’m sorry if some people feel they’ve been driven away. Everyone is welcome here — as long as they keep it civil.
Susie B,
I don’t like taking down a person’s comments. And I don’t like banning people. Gets in the way of the free discussion I was talking about in my reply to ludwig, above. Today, however, I had to put one into the moderation queue that was way too personal an attack.
Just so everyone knows, this is my new policy. If I see an attack that crosses the line of decency, I’ll remove it from view by placing it into moderation. If I see repeated comments of the same type by the same person, I’ll force all of said person’s comments into moderation before posting. And if that doesn’t stop the problem, I will outright ban someone from posting on this site.
So, as I said just a moment ago, everyone is welcome to participate in the discussions here. As long as they keep it civil and stick to the topic under discussion.
If you want to be part of a freewheeling insult fest, however, there are a few discussion boards I can point you to.
Well so, I have two points Rant:
1) I admire your restraint.
2) However, THIS IS EXACTLY what THE TROLL set out to do from the start: destroy the forum.
It’s what they do.
Ludwig wrote: “As soon as Floyd changed his tune and started behaving ethically, they did a 180 and became Floyd’s most outspoken haters.”
Armstrong is scheduled to change his tune on Monday … so I guess the new crop of Landis supporters are going to become Armstrong supporters too? Ludwig, if Landis’ confession was enough to swing your support his way, won’t Armstrong’s confession have the same effect on you? After all, all you care about is the truth. The fact that Landis lied and cheated for years doesn’t affect your current high regard for him. Presumably you’ll feel the same way about Armstrong, regardless of his past conduct, so long as he comes clean?
As for me … a hater? Because I pointed out that Landis’ eventually telling the truth is no defense to his prior criminal fraud? Imagine being able to go into court, and your defense to criminal fraud charges is that you engaged in the criminal fraud! That you could be declared innocent merely by pleading guilty.
As for my “delusional belief in Floyd Landis” — meaning, of course, my delusional belief in Floyd Landis prior to his confession — funny thing! Back in the day, I believed that Landis might not have been guilty of doping with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour. And today, Landis STILL maintains that he’s innocent of doping with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour. And I now think that Landis doped with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour. And many of the people who thought that Landis was lying prior to his confession now believe that Landis is telling the truth now, and IS innocent of doping with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour. So … while I now think I was wrong about Landis’ doping case, some of the people who thought I was wrong back then now think I was right?
I assume that the current crop of Landis believers includes Ludwig, who maintains that Landis is now behaving “ethically”. If he’s behaving ethically, he’s telling the truth about the 2006 Tour. Right? Or, is it ethical to continue to lie about what the arbitration case was about, what the “Fairness Fund” was about, about what we were all arguing about here back in the day? How could that be ethical? It couldn’t be. So, how can I have been delusional back then for believing then what Ludwig believes now?
I admit that I’m struggling to keep up with the logic.
So … the old crop of Landis opponents, folks like Ludwig, once believed that Landis was guilty of doping with exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour, but once Landis confessed to having doped with just about every possible PED under the sun for nearly his entire career, some of these folks (including Ludwig?) changed their minds and believed that Landis was innocent of doping with exogenous testosterone? Or, once Landis confessed to having lied serially and repeatedly about PED use, those who had concluded that Landis was lying about his use of exogenous testosterone during the 2006 Tour changed their tune and concluded that Landis had always been telling the truth about 2006? So, the best way for an athlete like Landis to convince his critics that he’s innocent of a doping charge is to admit that he’s doped a lot and lied about doping a lot?
I’m lost. Who, exactly, is delusional?
Rant,
Speaking of how you manage your site, you said: “It’s a free Internet, so people can come and go as they please.” Not true, and not true about your site. Yesterday I posted a comment that simply referred to Daniel Benson, the editor of cyclingnews.com and Susan Westemeyer, the monitor of the cyclingnews.com forum. The comment has been put under permanent (“seemingly”) moderation. Rant, did you receive telephone or e-mail threats from these people? Snake has certainly been doing his job.
These are people who publicly repeatedly discuss Lance Armstrong and who literally copy and paste news from other sites and put it on their site often without any references or sources. Their copy and paste is then often used in their forum discussions as if it is their original. They have openly praised Armstrong and were major public influences on his deception of the American public, even if it is a British tabloid.
They create sockpuppets and send them trolling to disrupt public discussion on the Internet, particularly if it involves any critical appraisal of their message and their site. The site itself is a breeding ground for hatred and for destroying people. So, Ludwig, to be banned from there is only an honor. I went there to discuss cycling. I was as naive as susie b who gave money to the Landis defense fund. I spoke up on the site for those being unfairly attacked. I spoke up against sockpuppets like Race Radio and Brodeal and Snake, who made nasty and patently false statements about people on the site and in the public. Many comments were censored that supported me. I was then banned. After I was banned, the editorial staff carried out a campaign of defamation against me on the site and on other Internet sites. Snake is the troll they sent here.
Rant, there seems to be little if anything left of “free Internet.” Your censorship of legitimate comments and discussion does not contribute to a public understanding of the reality of cycling. If susie b and Larry and MattC and Snake are permitted to rant with their very personal insults while saying only stupidities and outrageous lies, but you then censor legitimate discussion on just what makes cycling what it is and how the cheating is promoted by the media, then I have to agree with Ludwig.
If you are serious about sports and cheating, then you will assist an open and free discussion.
“Free” is never 90% free or %80 free.
Everyone,
Apparently, some settings on the site got a bit jumbled. Comments should be re-enabled now.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rant,
It seems that Lance has let known that he will be making a confession to Oprah on Monday when they tape. There is a lot of speculation about how full, complete, or authentic his confession will be. I suppose we can only wait until Thursday to see.
The American public loves to make heros from people who come from a poor or deprived background, who struggle, who overcome big odds (e.g., cancer), and who make a name for themselves. The same public also never feels really sure or certain about its heros, and then has a tendency to destroy that hero. Redemption and restitution are the next stage. The media plays into this, building the hero, demonizing the hero, and restoring the hero (always to a somewhat lesser, more human level).
Oprah has been a leading player in the last stage. Confessions, tears, and a motherly compassion that seems to make (just about) everything right.
Lance is and always will be as much a fairytale as a real person. If he can avoid jail, and Oprah can help him in this, then there might be some redemption in site.
No matter what happens on Oprah, Tygart is still waiting in the wings and I don’t see how Lance can avoid a sit down and a heart-to-heart with Tygart.
We can only wait and see.
Just to add a bit to ehat LauraLyn posted, here’s Juliet Macur’s story providing some limited details about the Oprah/Armstrong interview.
Rant
Thanks for posting the link. Apologies, I should have.
We need to ask why Juliet Macur and the New York Times are allowing themselves to be used this way? Lance is clearly testing the waters of public opinion. We should expect more responsible and critical journalism.
LauraLyn,
Responsible and critical journalism is, at least partially, in the eye of the beholder. Pick a subject, any subject, and you can easily start a discussion on “is this outlet writing responsible stories?”
If I were going to guess, I would say that Juliet Macur (who apparently got a six-figure advance from a publisher) might want to ensure access to Armstrong so she can get a direct interview (or two) for her upcoming book on Lance’s downfall. But this won’t be the official “Why I Did It” book. Bet on Sally Jenkins to be the person who ghosts Lance’s next literary effort.
Thanks for fixing things, Rant. Been off doing some high-altitude training on the slopes at Santa Fe, so I hope no one here rats me out. 😉
Anyway, here’s another link to a “he’ll confess” story. On the same page are some other links to related stories, including a “he won’t” cite the opinion of one Andy Schleck. I don’t know whether or not he’s any more privy to Armstrong’s intentions then we are, but hey, everyone’s entitled to his/her opinion.
Well I guess we’ll find out Thursday.
William,
Your secret’s safe with me. 😀 Not sure what happened, but the link you meant to post appears to have vanished. Is this the story? If not, then when you get a chance, can you post it again? Thanks.
Rant,
Thanks. I was not aware that Juliet Macur was so financially weighed in on the Lance story. This does now help to explain her real interest and he willingness to (mis)use the New York Times readership in order to help Lance test the waters of his “confession.”
While I can agree with you about the “partially,” responsible journalism does require people to reveal the sources of the information they publish as well as permit open and free discussion of what they have said. When people like Daniel Benson and Susan Westemeyer of cyclingnews.com simply copy and paste without any references and do not permit, either on their own tabloid site or on other Internet sites a free discussion of their activities, then this is not responsible journalism, however part and partial the partially might be.
Sending sockpuppets like Snake to other websites to defame people and divert the discussion from the topic is also not responsible journalism. It is damaging to cycling and damaging to a free and open society.
Rant,
This is an interesting ploy by the UK Sunday Times: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-lance-armstrong-oprah-winfrey-ad-20130112,0,7359554.story
Oprah is being put under heavy pressure to do this interview correctly.
See also: http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/01/13/21-questions-oprah-probably-wont-ask-lance-armstrong/ However, this is no match for what David Walsh and the Sunday Times have achieved. The Sunday Times’ “Ad” will be news in all major US and international news outlets. Very clever.
Oprah may have taken on this interview to help a friend and get into part of the limelight the USADA case brought, but she now has (at least “partially,” as you would say) put her own reputation for honesty on the line.
Rant,
An excellent reflection on the dichotomy so often presented in this discussion on Lance Armstrong:
http://tylerwren.com/articles/editorial-the-false-dichotomy
Tyler Wren is a Princeton University graduate (not sure how many summa’s he earned and I don’t think he or anyone else cares) and a long time professional road cyclist.
He has something valuable to say, especially to some of the posters here.
LauraLyn,
Snake is a someone who has been reading and posting comments here since the early days of this blog. I rather doubt that Daniel Benson or Susan Westemeyer had anything to do with his finding this site way back when. And, although he can certainly speak for himself, I doubt that either one of them has anything to do with whether he stops by from time to time to read the posts or participate in the discussions.
As for CyclingNews in general, it does seem like they use articles from various news services, or recycle information from other articles in other places quite a bit. Not unlike many regular newspapers, actually. My experience there is that if you look carefully, most of the time you can see where the story originally came from.
I’d agree with you that responsible journalists should reveal their sources, as that adds more information that readers can use to judge the credibility of the information provided. Anonymous sources should be quoted only sparingly, and only when revealing the person’s name would cause him/her serious harm.
+1 to Suzzy B and Sir Snake. Suzzy, did you ever get your Peet’s? If you ever get west of Boston, your coffee is on me. Oh, and a big +1 to Mr. Rant. We really do have some great people in this world.
Armstrong’s time on the stage is winding down. The antics are interesting to watch, but they are likely only significant to Armstrong himself. Maybe its sort of like the engineers staying in the bowels of the Titanic pumping all the water out that they can, just to delay the inevitable. But in this case, one guy is pumping to save himself. (And on the Titanic all the senior engineers died.)
Tygart’s the slippery devil to watch. What is going to come out of his smokey, back room dealings? Exactly what is he gunning for? That’s what scares me.
Rant:
Not sure what happened, but let’s try again
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8837229/lance-armstrong-confess-doping-tv-interview-oprah-winfrey-report-says
LL:
Interesting piece, that Tyler Wren bit. I found the part where he mentions the ups ang downs of racing as being all part of the game illuminating. All too often, IMO, a doper will say he had to dope in order to compete. Could it be that these riders simply were good enough to compete? Athletes all the time fail when they move to the next level: the star HS football player who can only become a walk-on for the scout team at college, the Heisman winner who bombs out in the NFL, etc.
I guess it was only a matter of time before this overture would occur. Lance is trying to make nice with Floyd. So far, according to the USA Today story, Landis has rebuffed Armstrong’s efforts.
Question I’d like to see Oprah ask, “Are you in a 12-step program like AA?”
I sort of wonder if Armstrong had been nicer to Landis, especially when Landis was attempting to resurrect his career, if all this wouldn’t have happened.
William,
Arsmtrong had done the most stupid move with Landis. Too stingy maybe is Lance, and for sure shows lack of compassion after having used Floyd for his aim against french lab.
William and Jean,
I think the way Lance treated Floyd in 2010 was the thing that hastened Armstrong’s downfall. Novitzky was already investigating Kayle Leogrande and various riders on the Rock Racing team, however. And some had ties back to the US Postal/Discovery teams. I’m not sure if either the Feds or USADA could have brought charges against Lance without Floyd. Directly or indirectly, he paved the way for a number of riders to talk. Hincapie, Leipheimer, Zabriskie and all the others.
If Lance had been helpful to Floyd, I suspect Landis never would have opened up about the inner workings at the US Postal team during his time there. And that would’ve made it harder for Novizky to get at Lance. Big oops by Armstrong.
Wow…apparently I’ve got some catching up to do.
“LauraLyn January 11, 2013 at 4:28 pm
“You can’t say, ‘I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. But now you’ve got me, so I’ll come in and admit it and get a break.’” USADA attorney Richard Young”
Isn’t this exactly what all the Lance testifiers just did? Haven’t all of them denied doping allegations in the past? I certainly don’t recall ANY of them fessing up their doping sins until they were forced to do so under oath, do you? It was only after their forced testimony (confession) that they recieved their “break” for giving up the goods on Lance…you know…that laughable 6 month hand-slap/get-out-of-jail-free sentence that was carried out during the off season? Boy, if there ever was a doping ‘get out of jail free’ card, that was it (but hey that’s just my thoughts on the subject).
Oh, but wait…I think I see it now… that quote from Richard Young was meant for only one person.
And then, for a while (a very short while) things seem to be going well with some actual honest-to-goodness no-attack discussion happening.
And then…. (excerpt copied from this comment:
(LauraLyn January 12, 2013 at 2:51 am)
“Rant, there seems to be little if anything left of “free Internet.” Your censorship of legitimate comments and discussion does not contribute to a public understanding of the reality of cycling. If susie b and Larry and MattC and Snake are permitted to rant with their very personal insults while saying only stupidities and outrageous lies, but you then censor legitimate discussion on just what makes cycling what it is and how the cheating is promoted by the media, then I have to agree with Ludwig.
If you are serious about sports and cheating, then you will assist an open and free discussion.”
Uhm, LL, if you don’t mind, would you please please show me where I’ve done the following ” rant with their very personal insults while saying only stupidities and outrageous lies”?
You just can’t stop with the personal attacks, can you? If you think my OPINION on matters is stupid, well, that’s just fine and it’s your perrogative because that’s YOUR opinion. But you DON’T NEED TO SAY IT! Why can’t you simply post YOUR thoughts (about the SUBJECT ONLY) and leave it at that?
When have I ever said ANY “outrageous lies”? My opinion on ANY topic that we are discussing is my own. I’m free to say it, and you are free to disagree by stating your own thoughts. THAT is discussion. THAT is what has been happening here for years and years. But telling the other person that they are stupid (or ANY other form of personal attack) is unnecessary, rude, and just plain mean.
And finally this, taken from this comment:
“LauraLyn January 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm”
“You are entitled to your opinion. But when you state it publicly in an open discussion, you can expect people will tell you it is empty and meaningless when your opinion is shown to be uniformed and wrong.”
Maybe that’s how things work over on CN Forums…but it’s not how things work here to the best of my knowledge. My question directed to the above quote is Why? WHY must you tell me (or anybody else) that their opinion is “empty and meaningless” and “uninformed and wrong”?
It’s simply someone’s thoughts on a matter…their beliefs. That’s what discussions are. And your thinking these things about my opinion is entirely YOUR OPINION! You don’t swing someone’s thinnking over to yours by calling them names and maligning them, that only brings hostility. You do it by stating your thoughts, reasons and references, and letting the other person come to their own conclusion.
I shudder to think what you would do if I discussed my religious or political beliefs with you…
If I had your address I’d mail you a copy of Miss Manners.
I like Lance Armstrong. Whenever I turn on a cycling broadcast, I still miss him. I don’t care who knows it.
Another opinion piece which claims it’s a done deal he’ll ‘fess up, but which also opines it might not do him much good:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/opinion/kurtz-lance-armstrong/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
And here’s an article which claims he actually did confess:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8844549/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-interview-oprah-winfrey-report-says
And now Oprah has confirmed his confession:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8845599/oprah-winfrey-confirms-lance-armstrong-admitted-doping
Surprises me, as I would have thought she’d try to keep a lid on it in order to increase viewers. In addition, I took a look at the comments and they seem to me to be much more negative now. So whether this move will help to rehabilitate his image with the public is up in the air.
This move somewhat surprises me, given Armstrong’s hardlne denials before. Perhaps the key is in the apology given to Livestrong prior to the taping. He doesn’s want his problems to drag down the foundation.
Rant, I guess you should have bought that lottery ticket.
I do believe that people know now what kink of person is Lance, so they are going to resist to his PR. Not sure if they can do it for long.
Lance would have a big fight to lead with Weisel, Verdruggen, Mc Quaid now.
That is going to be a new epic year.
William,
Good thing I did make any wagers on the Lance confession. 🙂
Jean,
It’s going to be an interesting year, indeed.
I wrote previously that I’d believe it when I hear it, so I’ll be interested in the exact content of the interview. I don’t expect it to be clear cut, but I could be surprised?
Jean C is on to something here. The more interesting part is going to be what comes after the airing of the interview. What happens to the Whistle Blower case, implications for UCI officials, and possible testimony against former business partners?……
Regardless of LA’s notoriety and financial assets, in the end, he was a rider and the riders are the low hanging fruit. Even considering my dislike of LA, I have mixed opinions about his recent downfall and don’t take much joy in it.
Had Tygart & company mustered the same energy, resources, and righteous indignation to mobilized and take down the corrupt officials who set up the riders in the first place, then I’d be impressed and happy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-and-says-he-will-testify-against-cycling-officials.html?hp&_r=1&
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323596204578242250517426858.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
I can only assume that Lance went over his ‘confession’ many times with his legal team, ensuring that the only info given was the ones that don’t open him up to prison time…nobody ever accused him of being stupid…he’s proven that he is a master tactician, and doesn’t make a move unless it’s planned.
About the only thing I heard on the news this morning was that Oprah claimed he didn’t come clean to the extent that she had expected…and that she had 112 questions prepared and got thru nearly all of them, and also during the interview at one point Lance asked her when she was going to “lighten up”.
He surely has a strategy in mind here, knowing that much like a politician running for office, there are those who will hate him no matter what (and will twist and skew whatever he says into something other than what he intends for it to be)…and there will also be those who will take what he says as gospel and forgive, and then there will be those in the middle (the independent voters) who he is hoping to win over.
But what his endgame here is I can’t fathom…public support (at best a small portion of the population) won’t get him back into sports…as has been said here and many other places, he needs to come to the table with new and earth-shattering information for his lifetime ban to be rescinded to anything that gets him into competition before he’s old and gray.
The only thing I see that makes sense is that this entire move here is for the foundation. He must know there’s no chance of competing again.
As you said Rant…it’s going to be an interesting year for sure.
Happy New Year!
Interesting points Jeff…I know the lifetime ban is becasue he was the “ringleader” and has been accused/convicted of everything that goes with doping: transport, distribution, etc etc…but in reality, does anybody see Lance out in a dark alley with a briefcase of cash making the actual transaction? Or that he’s driving around with a large duffel-bag (or whatever) of EPO/HGH/whatever? And him in person going around divying out the goods to the chosen ones? Or making the actual deal (with whoever the supplier was) in the first place, discussing numbers, etc etc?? There are a LOT of enablers out there…and not only for Postal…for EVERY team/person who doped (is doping)…and we’ve had very little info on that.
Are you telling me that NOBODY at Amgen has any inkling of how much of their product was/is NOT headed to valid cancer clinics/Dr’s and using it as intended? I’m guessing there are a LOT of people out in many high places hoping to keep their role in the doping system secret.
Lance has thus-far been the fall guy for the entire EPO era in cycling…and that is most likely becasue of his refusal to come clean. I can only guess that he has a lot of VERY interesting information in his head. But how much of that will ever see the light of day remains to be seen.
But in the end Jeff I agree…no matter how large a fish he was in the net, he was still a ‘user’…the dealers and everybody else associated are still out there.
Today, I can just picture Tygart foaming at the mouth like a rabid animal. He is going to get everything he ever wanted and more. It all boils down to game theory.
Needless to say, there will be nothing left for anyone, on any side, to salvage. It is a pure scorched earth policy. Very sad.
I am starting to wonder if the confession strategy involves taking down some of the UCI etc. bigwigs who might be complicit in at a minimum, looking the other way.
On another note, I was in our local B&N this morning and spied the current issue of Mad Magazine. On the cover was Alferd E. Newman riding a bike in a yellow jersey. The tag line was something about the dumbest people of 2012, and our friend from Austin was one of the names on the cover.
With Armstrong all but publicly confessed, it’s time for my own personal mea culpa. I’ve probably been Armstrong’s strongest supporter here. I dialed back my support when we saw the full USADA report, and it became obvious that Armstrong must have doped. But I held back a bit, figuring that maybe Armstrong would provide us with an explanation.
The explanation, for whatever it ends up being worth, has been given to Oprah.
When Landis confessed, I expressed strong outrage at his past lying, and in particular his raising funds for his own defense under false pretenses. Armstrong deserves at least as strong a condemnation. He also lied, and even if he never had a “Fairness Fund”, he used his lies to build an image that got us to buy shoes and other merchandise. There’s probably a technical difference between Landis’ criminal fraud and Armstrong’s lying hucksterism, but forgive me for being unwilling to try and locate the difference.
We might excuse Armstrong, if he doped to build a personal brand so that he might also build a world-wide brand to fight cancer. From a certain point of view, this is exactly what happened. I will not trash Livestrong as some have done here – I’ve documented here that Livestrong is a highly rated charity, but I also have the highly personal experience of how Livestrong helped me and my family when my mother was diagnosed with cancer. But if Armstrong doped to build an anti-cancer brand, it’s also true that he put that brand at risk with his doping and his lying about doping. He built the brand on a foundation of straw, and I am furious with him for doing that.
Even if Armstrong wants to argue that the end (Livestrong) justifies the means (doping), then we have to consider all of the other things he did besides doping: the lawsuits, the people he defamed, the people who found themselves out of a job and out of a profession because they ended up on Armstrong’s enemies list.
It remains to be seen what Armstrong can do to achieve any kind of personal redemption, who he needs to apologize to, who he needs to repay, who he needs to compensate for the injuries he inflicted. My lawyer brain tells me not to believe everything negative that has ever been written about Armstrong, but I think he has a lot to redress, and a simple confession on national TV is not enough. I’ve never been willing to let Landis off the hook, because he never confessed to his 2006 doping offense, nor did he ever apologize (not to my knowledge anyway) to the countless people he personally insulted in the course of his fraudulent doping defense, and his deal to compensate those he defrauded with pennies on the dollar is an outrage. If all we get from Armstrong is “I doped, everyone doped”, then Armstrong goes into the books along with Landis as a guy who lied for as long as he could and then told as little of the truth as he thought he could get away with.
I’ve been criticized here for directing my ire at Landis just as he started telling more of the truth. My feeling is that Landis has not done enough to make up for his past … but at least I can imagine what Landis might do that he hasn’t yet done. I can’t even fathom what Armstrong would have to do in order to convince me that his apology is sincere … if, indeed, an apology is forthcoming.
Then there’s me, and how I’ve taken the side of those accused of having doped, and how it eventually turns out that they did dope. I’ve never said that this person or that person never doped – my statements here are on the record. Instead, I’ve articulated the best defense I could muster for these athletes, and argued as best I could for the credibility of the defense. Doubtless there have been times when I stepped over the line, but with the exception of Dick Pound and the possible exception of Travis Tygart, I don’t think I ever attacked anyone personally. My argument was for process, fairness, and withholding judgment until all of the facts are in. My argument was not to believe an accusation just because it is made in the press, or even by an anti-doping official or an anti-doping lab. I still believe in that.
Still, I have to question why I’m so often on the losing side of the argument – I think my arguments are good, but I appear to be deploying them in the wrong cases, on behalf of the wrong athletes. I’m not likely to abandon my principles and join the side of the argument where an athlete can be accused of doping because we (cynically) know that they’re all doping. But I am starting to wonder if this particular effort at fairness is worth the effort.
Armstrong deserves all of the scorn I threw at Landis, back in the day. He probably deserves worse. I’ll give it all I can, but to be honest, my heart isn’t in it. My sense of outrage at lying doping confessing athletes has been dulled. And there is that time when Livestrong helped me, and my mother.
Larry,
Thanks for a real and honest “confession”, that could be used as model by Lance.
BTW Lance doped before his cancer, so that could not be to promote his foundation. According some leaks, he would have confessed that he doped since 1990, probably with Carmichael, that part about the US junior team was already in books, difficult to deny it.
Unlike Landis, Lance has money to fix a lot of things. We will see soon what he is able to do.
Jean C, thanks for the kind words. I’ve always enjoyed our back-and-forth. Good point about Armstrong’s doping prior to his cancer, which raises another point: the terrible example Armstrong set for those recovering from cancer by taking prescription drugs under circumstances where those drugs are not generally regarded as safe.
But I can imagine Armstrong in 1999 saying to himself: if I want to build Livestrong I have to win races, and if I want to win races I must continue to dope … . Yeah. In all likelihood, there never was such an internal conversation, and Armstrong’s will to win (and to cheat if necessary) was independent of his desire to fight cancer.
Larry:
Whether it’s doping cyclists, or an accused criminal, there are some people who will assume the worst from the very start, while others will take more of the innocent until proven guilty approach, like you have done. Just as a guess, I suspect that this is part of why you choose the legal profession. And I too feel that just because someone accuses a rider, or a rider has some good results, we shouldn’t rush too judgement. However, it may well be that there are or at least were so many doping riders that the chances are good that the accused is actually guilty. But that does not mean that we should throw out due process, such as it exists, or even that we shouldn’t try to improve due process, if possible.
Don’t worry about having struck out a couple of times. You looked at what evidence we had available via the Internet, what the applicable laws and regulations were and analyzed them. We didn’t have all the evidence, at least at first. It was not, in my opinion unreasonable for some of us to hold the opinion that Landis or Armstrong or whoever was either innocent, or the evidence not sufficient to convict.
Hey all, not to interrupt the discussion, but there’s a new post out with some interesting analysis from Judge Bill Hue.