Looking at Armstrong
ilan
pressure on European authorities to get access to past drug tests
undertaken while Armstrong was in his peek.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-investigation-progressing-but-case-is-solid
-ilan
Substance McGravitas
Jesus Christ, you've maligned cyclingnews by quoting them verbatim.
While Armstrong was peeking at whom, we are left to wonder.
Brad Anders
> It is Novitzky, however who has the most scope and has continued his
> pressure on European authorities to get access to past drug tests
>
> -ilan
The way this investigation is going, the sentence may be to take away
LA's social security. Maybe after they're done with LA, they can go
after Pete Rose again.
Mike
Brad,
Lance Armstrong was a velopig, like Johan "The Hog" Bruyneel, and
Thomas Weisel.
All three were completely corrupt, sucking at the public taxpayer
trough: the United States Postal Service,
USPS was a tax payer funded government entity, which paid for Weisel's
doping program that enabled a large mediocre classics rider named
Lance Armstrong to give himself cancer, and then move on to win 7
DdF's and create LIVESTRONG, another Weisel style financial empire.
This is why the Weisel created a tower of cards will eventually come
falling down:
In a recession, you should not spend taxpayers money on dope, which is
what
USPS did for money years.
Google a guy name Loren Smith - the USPS marketing manager when USPS
initially sponsored Weisel's team. He was a friend of Weisel's who
also created
Dave Chauner's THRESHOLD SPORTS and STAMPS.COM, a company that
Weisel underwrote and then upgraded, in exchange for Loren Smith's
cooperation.
That is the whole story.
This is the crux of the Novitsky investigation. It has nothing to do
with doping, and everything to do with
spending taxpayers money on dope. It's a IRS investigation, and it's a
money trail.
WWW.VELOPORK.COM
Thanks,
Mike Schatzman
Brad Anders
peloton of dopers. The fact that they, too, had to dope to do it isn't
surprising, and anyone who would have vetted the sponsorship of a pro
cycling team for a multi-billion dollar corporation like the USPS
(e.g. a whole room full of lawyers a lot smarter than most who creep
around here) knew damn well what kind of sport they were buying into.
To claim a decade later that this somehow constituted "fraud" against
the US taxpayer is ridiculous and disingenuous. The conviction of LA/
Weisel/Bruyneel today in the US will have virtually no impact on the
doping practices of a sport that largely contested at a pro level in
Europe. I'd rather see the FDA using their investigative wing working
on issues that are far more important to the US consumer, such as food
safety.
RicodJour
>
> WWW.VELOPORK.COM
I guess all other URL names have been taken. We're down to the dregs.
How's the reformed prostitute business going?
R
Fred Flintstein
You'd be surprised how many people think this is a doping
case. And that doping to win a bike race is illegal.
I'm guessing I'm the only one here with a medal from elite
nationals in a team event with a teammate that makes his
living selling dope (very openly) over the internet. He
doesn't sell the finished product of course. He sells raw
materials (also used in cleaning products) and information.
The Feds that some are convinced will turn LANCE inside out
busted this guy not once but twice. After twice failing to
get a conviction, now they just leave him the hell alone.
And so it will be for LANCE. Eventually.
Fred Flintstein
Substance McGravitas
> You'd be surprised how many people think this is a doping
> case. And that doping to win a bike race is illegal.
It's bigger than that. Stuff I like is both moral and legal. Stuff I
don't like is neither. That's the way many people view these things.
RicodJour
How do you feel about stuff that is moral but not legal, or legal but
not moral? Like a legal eagle omelet with morel mushrooms - sounds
tasty, but would you eat it?
R
Mike
Brad,
You are right. The people involved in the USPS sponsorship - like
Weisel and Loren Smith - are very proud of what they achieved, just
read Weisel's autobiography (nobody else did).
And I guess in many ways, in the ways you described, they are
completely right.
They were the winners. Ullrich and Mayo and the rest were zero sum
"losers".
But this isn't about changing pro cycling - it's about recognizing
CORRUPTION when we see it. It might take ten years to come out, but
when it does we should call it what it is - lying, stealing and
cheating.
They need to be called out and prosecuted so maybe it won't happen
again in the future. And then there will be MORE MONEY to invest in
food safety, and not in fake champions and FAKE VELODROMES.
Mike
Substance McGravitas
Your big old brain is confusing you. Keep it simple:
moral = good
legal = good
good = whatever I want
This way you don't have to muck about with all that nasty thinking. If
the discussion involves politics and requires further nuance, you can
add to the list thusly:
constitutional = good
conservative = good
liberal = evil
Brad Anders
> But this isn't about changing pro cycling - it's about recognizing
> CORRUPTION when we see it. It might take ten years to come out, but
> when it does we should call it what it is - lying, stealing and
> cheating.
> They need to be called out and prosecuted so maybe it won't happen
> again in the future. And then there will be MORE MONEY to invest in
> food safety, and not in fake champions and FAKE VELODROMES.
I seriously doubt that the US prosecution and/or conviction of LA/
Weisel/etc.on corruption or fraud charges stemming from events 10+
years ago will have the slightest impact on whether or not mostly
European-based contemporary pro cycling teams will or will not run
team-based doping programs. Pro sport, in general, has extremely
strong incentives for those who cheat, enough so that when there is a
good chance of non-detection (e.g. fast clearing drugs, drugs for
which there is no current test, drugs that can be "explained" by a
doctor's note {read: asthma drugs}, etc.), individuals and teams will
do so if they think the benefits outweigh the risks. Even the most
draconian penalties that have been thought up and enforced have
resulted in the elimination of drugs, so I doubt seeing LA in the can
will change anyone's mind.
RicodJour
Not to mention that even the cows are doping so nobody is in The
Clear.
R
RicodJour
> On 5/12/2011 10:12 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 1:00 am, Substance McGravitas<F...@Burger.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2011 7:52 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>
> >>> You'd be surprised how many people think this is a doping
> >>> case. And that doping to win a bike race is illegal.
>
> >> It's bigger than that. Stuff I like is both moral and legal. Stuff I
> >> don't like is neither. That's the way many people view these things.
>
> > How do you feel about stuff that is moral but not legal, or legal but
> > not moral? Like a legal eagle omelet with morel mushrooms - sounds
> > tasty, but would you eat it?
>
>
>
> moral = good
> legal = good
> good = whatever I want
>
> This way you don't have to muck about with all that nasty thinking. If
> the discussion involves politics and requires further nuance, you can
> add to the list thusly:
>
> constitutional = good
> conservative = good
> liberal = evil
So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
on my pasta, that's an evil thing?
Somehow I think you're oversimplifying things in an overly complicated
way. How about this:
good = whatever I want = evil
It puts you in between good and evil, which seems right, makes you
judge and jury, which seems right, and it's a nicely balanced
equation, right?
R
Substance McGravitas
That's good, so far as it goes. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything at
all to explain why my point of view is correct and yours is wrong.
Without that, what's the point?
Scott
> So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
> on my pasta, that's an evil thing?
>
> R
No, it's evil when he progressively sprinkles grated cheese...
RicodJour
> On May 13, 6:39 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
> > on my pasta, that's an evil thing?
>
You believe the cheese should be spread around equally? That smacks
of socialism.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
It's evil because the waiter controls the supply of grated cheese
and that kind of centralized command economy is inefficient
and leads to tyranny. As demonstrated, this centralized system
has infantilized and enslaved you, to the point where you've
lost the ability to sprinkle cheese on your own pasta.
In a truly free world, you would show initiative and bring
your own cheese and cheese-grater to the restaurant,
weakling.
Sincerely,
Fredmaster Ayn
RicodJour
I bring my own goat. I don't believe in the nanny-state.
R
Anton Berlin
> I bring my own goat. I don't believe in the nanny-state.
>
> R
I always suspected you had a relationship with a goat or sheep.
Thanks for the confirmation