Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: What about Horner? [jmh] [ In reply to ]
 
jmh wrote:
I'm puzzled by Horner. He was one of the 3 amigos with Lance and Levi doing the Gila. But, not with Lance during the TdF "win" years.

Maybe I just want to believe someone from that era was clean...anyone. But to make these statements after all that has gone down in the last few weeks, he is either honest (and both perhaps both blind and deaf) or stupid.

I am dubious about this statement:

Quote:
“Never seen it on the team. Never heard about it. Never seen it,” Horner told VeloNews Monday afternoon.


http://velonews.competitor.com/...ruyneel-teams_261673

I trust that he never had evidence that Lance was doping when he was on the team; by then Lance and Co were working with a much smaller circle, and Horner has never been on JB's inner circle. He had to beg to get on the tour team even after Andy was out and they really had no other option; JB made him go him go on the record supporting him and Lance.
 
Re: What about Horner? [jmh] [ In reply to ]
 
jmh wrote:
I'm puzzled by Horner. He was one of the 3 amigos with Lance and Levi doing the Gila. But, not with Lance during the TdF "win" years.

Maybe I just want to believe someone from that era was clean...anyone. But to make these statements after all that has gone down in the last few weeks, he is either honest (and both perhaps both blind and deaf) or stupid.

I am dubious about this statement:

Quote:
“Never seen it on the team. Never heard about it. Never seen it,” Horner told VeloNews Monday afternoon.


http://velonews.competitor.com/...ruyneel-teams_261673

Total crock of bs. When I lived in Cali years ago rumors were Horner was big time doper.
 
Re: Another Question Only [ClarkWGriz] [ In reply to ]
 
ClarkWGriz wrote:
and Nike terminated his contract...what's next?

And Trek, FRS, Giro, Mc Ultra, RadioShack (sort of), Honey Stinger (even though like FRS he's a major investor)...
 
Re: Another Question Only [pick6] [ In reply to ]
 
pick6 wrote:
ClarkWGriz wrote:
and Nike terminated his contract...what's next?


And Trek, FRS, Giro, Mc Ultra, RadioShack (sort of), Honey Stinger (even though like FRS he's a major investor)...

Here's the next one. Anheuser-Busch.

http://sports.yahoo.com/...4016477--sector.html
 
Re: Another Question Only [TxDude] [ In reply to ]
 
Many people on ST are probably already aware of this, and apologies if it's already been noted here:

The thing I find most interesting about all of these sponsors 'dropping' Armstrong is that they all did it on the same day, they all continue to support Livestrong, and many of them, apparently, work with the PR firm Bazaarvoice. It's beginning to look more like a huge PR stunt than any sort of distancing from Armstrong.

I'd give these companies a lot more credit if they forced Livestrong to cut ties to Armstrong and his cronies (so far all that's happened is that Armstrong and Garvey have essentially traded places). Nike et al could also switch charities altogether; there are plenty of good, even cancer-related, charities out there. There's certainly no need to tie yourself or your company to one that refuses to sever its relationships to an individual like Armstrong.

-------------------------------

"People with advantages are loath to believe that they just happen to be people with advantages" C. Wright Mills
 
Re: Another Question Only [Toronto] [ In reply to ]
 
Toronto wrote:
Many people on ST are probably already aware of this, and apologies if it's already been noted here:

The thing I find most interesting about all of these sponsors 'dropping' Armstrong is that they all did it on the same day, they all continue to support Livestrong, and many of them, apparently, work with the PR firm Bazaarvoice. It's beginning to look more like a huge PR stunt than any sort of distancing from Armstrong.

I'd give these companies a lot more credit if they forced Livestrong to cut ties to Armstrong and his cronies (so far all that's happened is that Armstrong and Garvey have essentially traded places). Nike et al could also switch charities altogether; there are plenty of good, even cancer-related, charities out there. There's certainly no need to tie yourself or your company to one that refuses to sever its relationships to an individual like Armstrong.

agreed. definitely PR driven and definitely planned. I would think it was orchestrated to have al little implact as possible. If every week or tow for the next six weeks a different sponsor dropped then it would get in the news every week or two and seem like a snowballing effect. All done in one day. Will be out of the news by tomorrow.
 
Re: Another Question Only [rhayden] [ In reply to ]
 
I love this comment:

Former UCI president Hein Verbruggen has denied stories that he was paid $500,000 to cover up a positive doping test for Lance Armstrong in 1999. “Armstrong has never tested positive,” he said in a text message to De Telegraaf. “There is no trace of evidence.”

To be read - There is no trace of evidence - i.e. we covered our tracks, made sure we burned, deleted and destroyed all physical evidence
 
What is risk of Lance coming clean? [ In reply to ]
 
So again I'll mention, I am on the fence and neither arguing pro or against Lance. I have issues with the weird contradiction of WADA reaching into pro cycling and suspending someone for life etc but yet know cheaters in baseball still are playing.

But I was thinking about a lot of comments around Lance should just come clean, do 60 minutes, get some tears going etc and everyone will forgive and move on.....

But what is the risk? Did he ever testify under oath that he never used and thus would open himself up for perjury charges? Would he implicate others?

What does he have to lose or gain at this point? What do others have to lose or gain?
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [azironman] [ In reply to ]
 
Yes. He testified under oath regarding the SCA ($5M bonus payout insurance policy for tour wins) so he would be liable for perjury, about $10M in fraudulent received money, and much more possible in damages.

Regarding others skating, Lance was the ego that decided to fight the system. He is also the one at the top of the pyramid and who benefited the most.

Lance was greedy... Made HUGE money, and in the end, probably could have come clean... if it was not for how he hounded and sued SCA for $5M when he was dirty as hell.

Hincapie, Hamilton, et al did not sue an Insurance company for over $5M dollars (not to mention harass and threaten teammates, wives, etc.), so in the end because of Lance's greed, lying through his teeth to protect his image that he basically maintains a lie or perjures himself...

Opps!
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Maui5150] [ In reply to ]
 
New Bracelet "BullyStrong"

Mike
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [azironman] [ In reply to ]
 
azironman wrote:
So again I'll mention, I am on the fence and neither arguing pro or against Lance. I have issues with the weird contradiction of WADA reaching into pro cycling and suspending someone for life etc but yet know cheaters in baseball still are playing.

But I was thinking about a lot of comments around Lance should just come clean, do 60 minutes, get some tears going etc and everyone will forgive and move on.....

But what is the risk? Did he ever testify under oath that he never used and thus would open himself up for perjury charges? Would he implicate others?

What does he have to lose or gain at this point? What do others have to lose or gain?


WADA can't do anything about baseball, footbal, basketball or hockey in the US. They're not allowed. baseball hasn't signed on in the USA, or USADA would be working on them as well. They actually did catch a hockey player prior to the world championships some years back for testosterone, because players on national teams fall under the USADA.

He testified under oath in the SCA hearings that he never used. There are other times as well outside the US.

Plus, admission leaves him open for a ton of lawsuits, the most important of which is Floyd's Qui Tam lawsuit that a confession guarantees the government inclusion of. If he doesnt confess, the government has a tougher choice on whether or not to join Floyd's suit. legal fees, damages and punitive damages could erode the majority of Lance's fortune.
Last edited by: pick6: Oct 18, 12 10:33
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [azironman] [ In reply to ]
 
azironman wrote:
So again I'll mention, I am on the fence and neither arguing pro or against Lance. I have issues with the weird contradiction of WADA reaching into pro cycling and suspending someone for life etc but yet know cheaters in baseball still are playing...

Even though it's the "World" authority, WADA's power/leverage is pretty much a function of its relationship/agreements with the IOC, which in turn extends to the individual national ADAs and individual sports governing bodies (like UCI). So, for a sport like MLB or NFL which doesn't fall under the Olympic umbrella, they can pretty much tell WADA/USADA to go pound sand with impunity because they have no desire to enter the gate to which WADA holds one of the keys.
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Maui5150] [ In reply to ]
 
KY jelly just pulled out they sponsorship, :(
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [ian moone] [ In reply to ]
 
the devil made me do it


 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [mattreg3] [ In reply to ]
 
Ok Lance has been raped very well. Although all of us need to wipe the planks out of our eyes as we are all so good and never break any of the 10 commandments! (Anybody go to church on Saturday and honour the 4th commandment?) Shouldn't we now discuss Lemonds drug use and then potentially all of the 5 X tour winners?

5 X Ironman Finisher
 
Re: A Question Only [TxDude] [ In reply to ]
 
TxDude wrote:
All of this makes you wonder why the Feds ever dropped the case? Pretty clear they had the type of evidence they needed to prove systematic team sponsorship of doping. Rumor is decision was based on politics.


Absolutely. Do you think the Justice Department would take on a public trial of a national and world hero in face of the Fast & Furious investigation all during an election year. Look for it to be reopened after the election. I think they'll have the public's support as well as the evidence. If I was Lance's lawyers I would crawl into the Justice Departments offices and try to work out a deal to avoid criminal charges and forfeiture of everything he owns under the RICO staute.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *
http://www.bobswims.com/

"If you didn't swallow water in your last open water race, you weren't racing"
 
Re: A Question Only [E=H2O] [ In reply to ]
 
Forget all that its history. What about the UCI. If they strip Lance of his titles, what is to stop him opening the flood gates? Admitting that the UCI tipped him off about when he was going to be tested, admitting there was a coverup in the tour de Swiss where he tested positive and admitting bribery was involved? If they don't ban him the look plain stupid. Its the UCI who need to fall now and cycling can the rebuild itself into a clean sport.


He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [irondude09] [ In reply to ]
 
irondude09 wrote:
Shouldn't we now discuss Lemonds drug use


Evidence or ban...
Last edited by: JollyRogers: Oct 18, 12 12:35
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [JollyRogers] [ In reply to ]
 
This has probably been addressed already in here, but a quick search didn't find the answer. Does anyone know why so many of the people in the USADA report that were named as doping are blacked out? Obviously, many people that doped are named openly in the report and affidavits. But many others are redacted. What determined whether the names were published versus hidden?
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [azironman] [ In reply to ]
 
azironman wrote:
So again I'll mention, I am on the fence and neither arguing pro or against Lance. I have issues with the weird contradiction of WADA reaching into pro cycling and suspending someone for life etc but yet know cheaters in baseball still are playing.

But I was thinking about a lot of comments around Lance should just come clean, do 60 minutes, get some tears going etc and everyone will forgive and move on.....

But what is the risk? Did he ever testify under oath that he never used and thus would open himself up for perjury charges? Would he implicate others?

What does he have to lose or gain at this point? What do others have to lose or gain?

From this story:
http://www.velonation.com/...rong-took-drugs.aspx

"[SCA Promotions lawyer] Tillotson also confirmed that he was in a somewhat unique position, something which could become important if a perjury case is ever taken against Armstrong. “Whether it is a blessing or a curse, I remain the only lawyer to have taken sworn evidence from Lance Armstrong and to have him deny under oath, with the penalty of perjury, that he has used performance enhancing drugs,” he said.

SCA Promotions confirmed last week to VeloNation that it was monitoring the Armstrong situation and that it would consider trying to recoup the money paid out if the UCI backs USADA’s sanctions. The Sunday Times is also considering legal action over its own payout in the past. "

So, SCA and The Sunday Times will probably want their money back, and the Dallas DA may be pissed that Lance lied in his courtroom for insurance fraud. If he admits he took PEDs it seems like a slam-dunk perjury case is coming that could net him a few months in the slammer. But as Michael Vick has shown, there is hope for everyone to rehabilitate their images, but he will need to eat ALOT of humble pie first.
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
 
Do you think that there's any liability with the US Government as the team was supported by the US Postal Service? That wretched US congress got involved with the baseball players drug use. Cycling of course is trivial compared to baseball. However, - LA also was part of small conspiracy group that coerced, threatened, forced, and supplied drugs to teammates. Then, also coerced, threatened, and ruined lives of people who would reveal the truth. There is a huge difference between someone like Tyler Hamilton and LA.
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Toenail] [ In reply to ]
 
Toenail wrote:
Do you think that there's any liability with the US Government as the team was supported by the US Postal Service? That wretched US congress got involved with the baseball players drug use. Cycling of course is trivial compared to baseball. However, - LA also was part of small conspiracy group that coerced, threatened, forced, and supplied drugs to teammates. Then, also coerced, threatened, and ruined lives of people who would reveal the truth. There is a huge difference between someone like Tyler Hamilton and LA.

He had no gun to their head. They could have all said no to drugs and went on their way. They are all cheaters, dopers and liars. There is no difference. They should all pay back money to their sponsers and race earnings.
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
 
thx for that article link. I think I read in there that it wasn't a stipulation with the insurance deal that he win clean? Maybe I miss read it.

That article doesn't paint a really good picture of the UCI though. Didn't they win a judgement against Landis when he accused them of covering up Lance's test results?

Seems like the report opens up an appeal there.

I think as many of you have said, he might not be able to come clean and do the talk shows because he's in too deep.

many I talked to are conflicted because of all the good the Livestrong foundation has done. A lot of people wished he would have raced Kona.

Maybe Lance will write another book...that would break some sales records.

Just thinking about the Lance fallout and risk of coming clean...A-Rod came clean...some other players came clean. Wonder why the Yankees or some other team didn't or won't try and terminate long term contract? Seems like Lance has more at risk...
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Hanaki] [ In reply to ]
 
Hanaki wrote:
Toenail wrote:
Do you think that there's any liability with the US Government as the team was supported by the US Postal Service? That wretched US congress got involved with the baseball players drug use. Cycling of course is trivial compared to baseball. However, - LA also was part of small conspiracy group that coerced, threatened, forced, and supplied drugs to teammates. Then, also coerced, threatened, and ruined lives of people who would reveal the truth. There is a huge difference between someone like Tyler Hamilton and LA.


He had no gun to their head. They could have all said no to drugs and went on their way. They are all cheaters, dopers and liars. There is no difference. They should all pay back money to their sponsers and race earnings.


Yup...you've got the answer. Of course it's that easy, just say no and walk away....to your future as a janitor. Genius.
Last edited by: idk: Oct 18, 12 14:59
 
Re: What is risk of Lance coming clean? [Hanaki] [ In reply to ]
 
Ha....

It's ignorant attitudes, and lack of investigation & reason, - that will get you into trouble every time: more than here.....

Question? Does any governmental body treat suppliers & users differently than just plain users?

The supposition put forward, was, given the nature of the person, what are some of the repercussions that might come from further action if he confessed, or didn't.....???????

Quote:
They could have all said no to drugs and went on their way
In the most polite terms possible, - that is crap, and completely untrue. (That is what really shows your ignorance). Those people worked their butts off, and dedicated their lives to get where they got. Technically, one should have/always has, a choice, - but in practice, in the real world, - things are different. Those riders, knew, and saw, what happened to people within that evil man's sphere who tried to, or walked away. No one just walked away.....
 

Prev Next