Illuminati-R-Us

Many years ago, I posted this at BAUT.

These days, we have this in the news, and it's not allegations from the cheese eating surrender monkeys that were so vilified by some of the BAUT community that first time round. It's looking like Nergal's Option B is the most likely of his scenarios now.

Lianachan wrote:Many years ago, I posted this at BAUT.

These days, we have this in the news, and it's not allegations from the cheese eating surrender monkeys that were so vilified by some of the BAUT community that first time round. It's looking like Nergal's Option B is the most likely of his scenarios now.

So you will be posting there? Some of the posters are still active, could be interesting.

Nergal ruled out option B on the grounds that if he were cheating, he would have been caught. As he hadn't been caught before, he must not be cheating.

Absolutely not posting there, no. I like how Nergal says that if Armstrong had been cheating, then it would make him "the most spectacularly successful dope-test dodger in modern sports history" because that's more or less word for word what he was called on the BBC News on the TV this morning.

:D

I'm not going back either. I ran through a whole list of rebuttals and rational arguments which were ignored then so no reason they would be taken seriously now.

Heid the Ba' wrote:I'm not going back either. I ran through a whole list of rebuttals and rational arguments which were ignored then so no reason they would be taken seriously now.

It's not the damn war dodging French that are making the accusations this time. It's good people. 'merkin people. Surely that's worth something?

Nah, we're idiots.

Of course, yes. I'd forgotten to factor that in.*


* My new standard reply to all posts.

AH, good.

I need one of those... maybe:

Consistency, is the hobgoblin of...something.

Now that USADA has made theircomplete evidence, including all correspondence, available to the UCI and to the public, this gem by Nergal strikes me for its complete lack of foresight:

Nergal on BAUT 7 years ago wrote:](A) He's benefited from a massive cover-up. I'll shoot that one down right now. There are elements in France that would love nothing more than for him to test positive, and the testing (from what I've read) is adequately independent.

(B) He's a doper, and he's covered it up. Ok, then that would make him the most spectacularly successful dope-test dodger in modern sports history. Many others have been busted for using the things he's accused of. The thought that he could go this many years, competing successfully at this high a level, and successfully evade detection is to much for me to beleive.

(C) He's clean.

In the abscense of evidence of (A) or (B), option (C) remains the only viable alternative.

B, man, it's just B... And he paid a million $ to do it.

So he is sponsored by the US postal service? It would be more appropriate if they sponsored the slowest riders . . .

He was then. From memory the team sponsors were: Motorola, then USPS, then Discovery Channel. He retired then came back with Astana, then moved to Radioshack.

It is very tempting to push a dessert trolley, heavily laden with fresh slices of Humble Pie, around that thread now.

Indeed, he went a lot further than I thought he would, though I have only heard soundbites.

There are still people on websites defending him.

Heid the Ba' wrote:Indeed, he went a lot further than I thought he would, though I have only heard soundbites.

There are still people on websites defending him.

Lance Armstrong - a Liar: Check

I view this situation as one big lie I repeated a lot of times ~ Lance Armstrong

and a Cheat: Check

Oprah: Did you ever take banned substances to enhance cycling performance?
Armstrong: Yes

Seems pretty clear cut to me. People still defending him, or still denying any wrong doing?

I yielded to temptation, and posted in that thread. Worth coming out of BAUT retirement for? Doubt it.

Defending him on the "He cheated, so what? He raised money for cancer." basis; despite there being real doubts what the Livestrong money has actually been used for.

I love his conflicting claims that he couldn't have won any of his Tours clean, but that he was clean for his comeback.

Heid the Ba' wrote:Defending him on the "He cheated, so what? He raised money for cancer." basis;

Ah, gotcha.

Heid the Ba' wrote:despite there being real doubts what the Livestrong money has actually been used for.

There are? Sounds like a story that may not go away for a while, then.

Info here. Much of the money is spent on advertising and raising awareness, virtually nothing goes on cancer research. It is claimed they spend 45c in advertising for every dollar they raise.

The other thing to look at is Livestrong.org (a charity) and Livestrong.com (a company owned by Armstrong) and how they interact.

Hat off, Mr. Armstrong!


(Once, on a mountain stage of the Tour de France, I polished off three packs of cigarettes, and a bottle of whisky. So who's gonna replicate THAT now, eh!)

Copyright: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Arneb wrote:Hat off, Mr. Armstrong!


(Once, on a mountain stage of the Tour de France, I polished off three packs of cigarettes, and a bottle of whisky. So who's gonna replicate THAT now, eh!)

Copyright: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

"and still won"

All I know is that for several days on the news I heard over and over that he was thinking about owning up. Let me see, "I may admit to this or I may not, I haven;t decided"??? Then we heard he was going to be on Oprah for a couple days, then the interview had been recorded but not yet aired for a couple days and we heard constant reports about how it was said he made admissions but we haven;t heard the interview yet. Then it comes out, he admits to doping. And now that is all I can hear on the news all day long. Frankly, I am sick of hearing about it, regardless of how it turned out or what the implications might be.

At least this only lasted a couple weeks, unlike "fiscal cliff" which is burned into my ears indelibly.

And of course, it had to be Oprah. You know, not in a court where he would say what he had to say under oath, and under pressure.

One more for the gallery, none for clearing up the mess he has created.

He'll get his chance under oath sometime soon.

He is also negotiating to settle against The Sunday Times who lost a libel action against him when he lied under oath, which may come back to haunt him as a perjury/contempt of court charge.

I was at a lecture the other night given by The Sunday Times journalist David Walsh who was one of the few who doubted Armstrong from the start, it was interesting stuff. One of the things that has always stumped me was how Armstrong's cancer wasn't detected in any of the drug tests he was known to have taken in the year or so before he was diagnosed. There is a hormone (HCG) which shows up in two cirumstances, if you are taking synthetic testosterone or if you have testicular cancer. There have been a number of sportsmen diagnosed before they have had symptoms because they have been dope tested, alan stubbs the footballer and Eric Peters the rugby player come to mind, neither had any symptoms when they were diagnosed. Armstrong was clean in 20 odd tests, many after he had symptoms, and I had always assumed he had substituted clean urine or blood for his own. Walsh says (now this gets very hearsay-ey very quickly) that Jonathan Vaughters (a former team mate and now a team manager) says that Armstrong told him that if the UCI ever moved against him he would sue them for failing to detect his cancer by incorrectly doing the tests.

Given that Armstrong is a pathalogical liar I don't know if this is true, or if Armstrong did fake the tests and it is a bluff, or Vaughters (who I don't trust either) is making it up, or if the UCI didn't look for banned synthetic testosterone, or something else.

I have never been much of a sports fan and certainly do not approve of cheating or violence in sports

Nevertheless from my somewhat naïve perspective I think there must be a level playing field.

In other words, if most of the competitors are cheating, not playing by the rules of the sport, then not to cheat in the same way will simply guarantee that you will lose.

Is that fair?

It reminds me of the bad old days of professional hockey in the 70s and the 80s and into the 90s where slashing, hooking and fighting became an integral part of the game.

It did not matter that under the rules of hockey such activities were illegal, that became how hockey was played. Any team that did not play under those conditions would simply lose. The officials were required to turn a blind eye to it, or issue ludicrous amounts of penalties, but regardless that’s how the game came to be played.

It offended me to the point where I would no longer watch NHL hockey and I am very happy that teams have gone back to more or less playing by the rules.

Should Lance Armstrong have played by rules that few were playing by and therefore lost, failed, and become a nobody?

I cannot glorify him. But enforcement of the rules must come from the officials, not entirely obedience by an honorable few of the athletes.

Well put.

Tough questions. My impression was that there was indeed a camaraderie between dopers and that the general consensus was , "we all do it, and since we have a level playing field, the best cyclist is still going to win. It's a tough world, cycling, and don't blame us on making every effort to win." The perennial second to Armstrong, Jan Ulrich, was seen by a lot of folks as someone who didn't train hard enough, didn't have the capacity to endure the pain when it was worst and grw a pouch during winter - a pathetic figure, a non-champion. Doping? Beside the point, they both did it, so Armstrong was a deserving champion, and Ulrich wasn't. It's why I stopped bein g interested in professional cycling (other than as a crime soap opera) long ago.

The thing about Armstrong is that he was at the top of the food chain, and he exploited it ruthlessly. He was out to destroy anyone breaking the omertà; and he did o successfully for a very long time. Admitted, he got to his position because he was far and away the best of about a hundred highly paid, highly efficient doping top cyclists. Still, your question is bit like asking "Shall we judge the mafia boss? They are all criminals, and isn't it unfair to single out just this one? Well, he got to be a mafia boss because he was the best at the mafia's game - that alone makes him worse than the rest. That a successful mafia boss may also have organizational talent, good social skills. may be a good administrator of his fortune or a great networker, always with a good nose for the next (sordid) business opportunity is beside the point: He is a top criminal, so we should see to getting him before all the others. If you are the best of a few hundred criminals, you're the one we should be after first.

Heid?