Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [TriBeer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tygart probably wants to unveil the corruption within the UCI
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [TriBeer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
my 2 cents


1) he wants to do good now, but he refuse to give any money back ($12 million TDF bonus),
2) question of ethics and morals about his lawyers, they defended and sued people on his behalf, now they know he lied to them and everybody else, and still caching in.


Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting post, Slowman. But I'd like to take issue with the idea Betsy or Oreilly were great victims here. It was a private conversation with a doctor. He would have asked them to leave had he not been on heavy pain killers after surgery, clouding his judgment. Yet she went home and immediately called all her friends and told them about it. She later refused to help out when Lance was being screwed out of millions by an insurance company. I think Armstrong had every right to be angry with her. Even today she has no conscience about all the people Armstrong is trying to protect from possible criminal charges over SCA - good friends, top doctors. Not only does she view this trivial issue of what happened at the hospital as more important than the career of a great champion, she also believes none of these good people matter. That shows complete narcissism.

I think a huge part of it is the guilt she feels for effectively ending Frankie's career by refusing to allow him to dope, knowing he wasn't good enough to survive in the peloton without it. Armstrong tried to get Frankie to come back after he retired, but instead Betsy forced him to wear a wire whilst meeting his agent. Horrible stuff. For years she consistently tried to out Lance but noone else in his team, which drove even Hincapie nuts as we saw from his email in the affidavits. It was straight forward bullying.

Frankie seems like a fairly honorable and simple man, but you have to ask how Armstrong ever allowed such low quality people into his inner circle. For that Armstrong does share part of the blame.

Now Oreilly. She is a more likable figure - she had a good relationship with Lance and he was only ever kind to her. This almost makes it worse that she would betray the team. She sold her story to the book and could have potentially brought down the team - all the great staff and riders within it. That was a very nasty thing to do. Armstrong's hints that they had to fire her for inappropriate behavior are really the least one could expect as blow back. I'm amazed that people believe she expected to do that without any consequences. What do you think was going to happen?

Armstrong's attempts to apologise, even though he has the moral highground, should be seen as an act of great grace. Personally I would have liked to see him give a much stronger defence of his actions. I think they were afraid of the media spinning it as more bullying.
Last edited by: CensoredCyclist: Feb 5, 13 17:47
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CensoredCyclist wrote:
Interesting post, Slowman. But I'd to take issue with the idea Betsy or Oreilly were great victims here. It was a private conversation with a doctor. He would have asked them to leave had he not been on heavy pain killers after surgery, clouding his judgment. Yet she went home and immediately called all her friends and told them. She later refused to help out when Lance was being screwed out of millions by an insurance company. I think Armstrong had every right to be angry with her. Even today she has no conscience about all the people Armstrong is trying to protect from possible criminal charges over SCA - good friends, top doctors. Not only does she view this trivial issue of what happened at the hospital as more important than the career of a great champion, she also believes none of these good people matter. That shows complete narcissism.

I think a huge part of it is the guilt she feels for effectively ending Frankie's career by refusing to allow him to dope, knowing he wasn't good enough to survive in the peloton without it. Armstrong tried to get Frankie to come back after he retired, but instead Betsy forced him to wear a wire whilst meeting his agent. Horrible stuff. For years she consistently tried to out Lance but noone else in his team, which drove even Hincapie nuts as we saw from his email in the affidavits. It was straight forward bullying.

Frankie seems like a fairly honorable and simple man, but you have to ask how Armstrong ever allowed such low quality people into his inner circle. For that Armstrong does share part of the blame.

Now Oreilly. She is a more likable figure - she had a good relationship with Lance and he was only ever kind to her. This almost makes it worse that she would betray the team. She sold her story to the book and could have potentially brought down the team - all the great staff and riders within it. That was a very nasty thing to do. Armstrong's hints that they had to fire her for inappropriate behavior are really the least one could expect as blow back. I'm amazed that people believe she expected to do that without any consequences. What do you think was going to happen?

Armstrong's attempts to apologise, even though he has the moral highground, should be seen as an act of great grace. Personally I would have liked to see him give a much stronger defence of his actions. I think they were afraid of the media spinning it as more bullying.

I give this an eight on the troll scale. So much bullshit.

This guy has been trolling Twitter on thiis issue for a long time.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [hna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed, but without Lance's help.

Doesn't the Reasoned Decision report unveil UCI corruption?
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [ian moone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I do appreciate your 2 cents. You're right on point 2, but Lance is not done making amends.

I have read that Lance may return some money, but can't make the other cyclists. I forget the article, but here's one I found: http://money.cnn.com/...armstrong/index.html
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [TriBeer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He's lost a lot, but he's still got your undying love! That must be worth something...
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [denali2001] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just don't think he needs to be crucified. That's all.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree but with Captain Queeg running the Witch Trials burning at the stake is to be expected.
I saw TT on tv and thought with that twitch of his all he needed were 3 steel balls in his hand.
Bogart will have to resurrected to play the movie version....

-Robert

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AmaDablam wrote:
CensoredCyclist wrote:


I give this an eight on the troll scale. So much bullshit.

This guy has been trolling Twitter on thiis issue for a long time.


Slowman should save time & ban him now*.


* IMO...
Last edited by: NAB777: Feb 5, 13 14:50
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AmaDablam wrote:


I give this an eight on the troll scale. So much bullshit.

This guy has been trolling Twitter on thiis issue for a long time.

Not sure what you mean. Lance follows me and we exchange DMs sometimes. No trolling. I guess I'm a bit more hardcore than him though. Maybe a bad influence on him. hehe.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm delighted by the news the feds won't be reopening the inquiry into issues related to doping. We can disagree about Lance's behavior and actions on many levels, but I think most people don't want to see the feds involved in bike racing in Europe.

http://news.yahoo.com/...0719107--sector.html
Last edited by: CensoredCyclist: Feb 5, 13 15:23
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CensoredCyclist wrote:
IIt was a private conversation with a doctor. He would have asked them to leave had he not been on heavy pain killers after surgery, clouding his judgment.
While at this point it is a case of he said/she said (i.e. here say), according to Betsy Andreu, when the doctors started to ask those questions, she indicated to her husband and the other non-family members that they should leave to give lance and the doctor's some privacy but Lance urged them to stay.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [ms6073] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ms6073 wrote:
CensoredCyclist wrote:
IIt was a private conversation with a doctor. He would have asked them to leave had he not been on heavy pain killers after surgery, clouding his judgment.
While at this point it is a case of he said/she said (i.e. here say), according to Betsy Andreu, when the doctors started to ask those questions, she indicated to her husband and the other non-family members that they should leave to give lance and the doctor's some privacy but Lance urged them to stay.

Yes, I know. That's why I explained that the heavy pain killers let his guard down. I'm sure he regrets that decision greatly. Nevertheless, once you're staying in the room, you have to keep that doctor patient conversation private. You don't start shouting in the hallway of the cancer ward like a hillbilly, and then go home and tell all your friends, and ultimately Walsh and SCA.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your moral compass is a little wonky.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [pick6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you agree to build me a house for $300k and the contract specifies that no drug users will be in the construction crew and you build me a great house and I discover later that there was a doper on the crew, what do you owe me? Do I get the house for free? That is crazy. My injury is nowhere close to the full contract price.

Same with Lance. Only a tiny fraction of the USPS money was used for dope. The rest was used to go cycling, exactly what USPS contracted for. There is a reasonable argument for returning the money used in doping. There is no reasonable argument to return the whole thing. USPS is not entitled to the free labor of the cycling team for all those years. It got the benefit of that bargain and should not now be asking for all the money back.

The law is complex, but this is not.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Exactly. The law is suppose to make you whole not better off than before.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Your moral compass is a little wonky.

I get a lot of that. But you have to remember there is a simplistic media bandwagon going on at the moment. These types of moral scares that make people highly onesided and vengeful. It's difficult for people to step back and look at it from both sides. If they did, I don't see how anyone could look at these instances and not at least say Armstrong had a right to feel aggrieved as well. What would we do?
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
pick6 wrote:
JoeO wrote:
I don't think so. While I doubt the USPS would ever want to spend money to help cyclists dope, the fact is they were spending the money for publicity -- which they received.

If illegal doping is the crime that the government is concerned about, prosecute that. But the notion of "fraud" and the requisite injury still seems to be missing. I think you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to come up with scenario in which USPS was injured by any of this.

Now the competitors, and the people he sued left and right -- they certainly seem to have reason to claim injury. But the USPS? Hardly


You cannot use federal tax dollars fraudulently, period. That's the whole of the case. Not that USPS didn't get the publicity but rather that Armstrong and tailwind co-owners received what amounts to a government contract fraudulently. It's no different than a gov't contractor failing to deliver on a weapons system because the technology was a hoax, from what I've been told. Im no lawyer so maybe I misunderstood what I was told.


But you are glossing over the definition of the word. "Fraud" requires injury. When a contractor fails to deliver the system, the injury is clear for all to see. Where is the injury to the USPS?

(Unless of course, my twenty-cent lawyering is wrong -- a distinct possibility).

Ok, restate: misuse of goverment funds; via the purchase of illegal drugs, transport of illegal drugs over state and federal lines. And the Birotte case isnt the only one he has to worry about. The Office of Inspector General is still investigating. They can choose to bring charges on those grounds alone. Im not saying they'll do so. My guess is he settles with OIG, settles with Floyd, settles with everyone. I really don't care about the money; I care about Lance naming all names, and continuing the progress. but right now he's not inclined to do so it seems, so we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ike wrote:
If you agree to build me a house for $300k and the contract specifies that no drug users will be in the construction crew and you build me a great house and I discover later that there was a doper on the crew, what do you owe me? Do I get the house for free? That is crazy. My injury is nowhere close to the full contract price.

Same with Lance. Only a tiny fraction of the USPS money was used for dope. The rest was used to go cycling, exactly what USPS contracted for. There is a reasonable argument for returning the money used in doping. There is no reasonable argument to return the whole thing. USPS is not entitled to the free labor of the cycling team for all those years. It got the benefit of that bargain and should not now be asking for all the money back.

The law is complex, but this is not.

Outside of this extrordinarily unfortunate legal loophole that allowed for this whole mess to be opened in the first place - the fact USPS was federal sponsor - morally USPS has no right to anything. I've heard people say the deal they agreed to wasn't a good one for them in the first place, but that has nothing to do with it. Lance's team upheld their side of the bargain and won. It's quite absurd to think USPS have lost out in any way from this.

If money is returned, and it seems likely some of it will be, will it even go towards the USPS? Or will it be spent on general government spending? What a joke.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CensoredCyclist wrote:
Interesting post, Slowman. But I'd to take issue with the idea Betsy or Oreilly were great victims here. It was a private conversation with a doctor. He would have asked them to leave had he not been on heavy pain killers after surgery, clouding his judgment. Yet she went home and immediately called all her friends and told them. She later refused to help out when Lance was being screwed out of millions by an insurance company. I think Armstrong had every right to be angry with her. Even today she has no conscience about all the people Armstrong is trying to protect from possible criminal charges over SCA - good friends, top doctors. Not only does she view this trivial issue of what happened at the hospital as more important than the career of a great champion, she also believes none of these good people matter. That shows complete narcissism.

I think a huge part of it is the guilt she feels for effectively ending Frankie's career by refusing to allow him to dope, knowing he wasn't good enough to survive in the peloton without it. Armstrong tried to get Frankie to come back after he retired, but instead Betsy forced him to wear a wire whilst meeting his agent. Horrible stuff. For years she consistently tried to out Lance but noone else in his team, which drove even Hincapie nuts as we saw from his email in the affidavits. It was straight forward bullying.

Frankie seems like a fairly honorable and simple man, but you have to ask how Armstrong ever allowed such low quality people into his inner circle. For that Armstrong does share part of the blame.

Now Oreilly. She is a more likable figure - she had a good relationship with Lance and he was only ever kind to her. This almost makes it worse that she would betray the team. She sold her story to the book and could have potentially brought down the team - all the great staff and riders within it. That was a very nasty thing to do. Armstrong's hints that they had to fire her for inappropriate behavior are really the least one could expect as blow back. I'm amazed that people believe she expected to do that without any consequences. What do you think was going to happen?

Armstrong's attempts to apologise, even though he has the moral highground, should be seen as an act of great grace. Personally I would have liked to see him give a much stronger defence of his actions. I think they were afraid of the media spinning it as more bullying.

Lance has the moral highground? I always wondered what you'd be like with more than 140 characters to work with. Now that I know, I wish I didn't.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think to qoute you..." Lance has the moral high ground".......says all the needs to be said about either your trolling or your compass
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CensoredCyclist wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Your moral compass is a little wonky.


I get a lot of that. But you have to remember there is a simplistic media bandwagon going on at the moment. These types of moral scares that make people highly onesided and vengeful. It's difficult for people to step back and look at it from both sides. If they did, I don't see how anyone could look at these instances and not at least say Armstrong had a right to feel aggrieved as well. What would we do?

"We" wouldnt have doped in the first place. Of course, you've never considered it from that point of view.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [TriBeer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriBeer wrote:
Agreed, but without Lance's help.

Doesn't the Reasoned Decision report unveil UCI corruption?

it doesnt prove anything about UCI's corruption. It proves only that lance intimidated and bullied, and lied, and doped, and pushed drugs, and via 2nd hand testimony indicates a potential UCI corruption. Without Lance's testimony, no action can be taken against the UCI.
Quote Reply
Re: Lance claims unfair treatment [CensoredCyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CensoredCyclist wrote:
ms6073 wrote:
CensoredCyclist wrote:
IIt was a private conversation with a doctor. He would have asked them to leave had he not been on heavy pain killers after surgery, clouding his judgment.
While at this point it is a case of he said/she said (i.e. here say), according to Betsy Andreu, when the doctors started to ask those questions, she indicated to her husband and the other non-family members that they should leave to give lance and the doctor's some privacy but Lance urged them to stay.


Yes, I know. That's why I explained that the heavy pain killers let his guard down. I'm sure he regrets that decision greatly. Nevertheless, once you're staying in the room, you have to keep that doctor patient conversation private. You don't start shouting in the hallway of the cancer ward like a hillbilly, and then go home and tell all your friends, and ultimately Walsh and SCA.

Wrong. He waived doctor patient confidentiality when he let her stay in the room. He knows this. It's why he won't admit it happened, because then the doctor will likely be sanctioned for falsifying medical records.
Quote Reply

Prev Next