Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

I think it is a little harsh for a company (Nike) to drop Lance when they were obviosly not only aware of his doping but complicit in it as well (with the cover up moneys).

Lances biggest crime is that he is a prick. When young riders step up to the pro peleton (or did in the 90s) it seemed like the norm for coaches to say 'right, your a good rider, now its time to be a 'pro' and this is just part of being a pro cyclist. It seems that Lance (and the others) saw this as the norm and therefore decided that along with training harder they would dope harder as it was part and parcel of the job.

No doubt that Lance is a lieing cheating shitbag, but, reading all this hasnt made me think 'oh my god, Lance doped, throw the book at him, it has made me think how coaches, sponsers, the UCI have pressured ambitious young riders into thinking that to make it in the sport that they have given there life to so far they have to dope.

It seems that this has now chainged but we can never be sure. I for one will put it to one side and wait eagerly for the spring classics and the fun that will bring. Can Thomas step up on the cobbles? Will Boonen and Cancalara cancel themselves out? Will Cav win Milan San Remo? Will Gilbert smash every race he starts like 2011? I cant fucking wait!

I don't know if I buy this Nike being part of the conspiracy stuff. It's all getting a bit Phil Liggett. I really don't see how that would work in a massive corporation nor how the gains would outweigh the risks? And this idea that Nike knew. What does that even mean?

I don't know if I buy this Nike being part of the conspiracy stuff. It's all getting a bit Phil Liggett.

Well, how much money would you be prepared to pay? Perhaps we can make a deal.

All I have are these suit cases of money left by these strange men who asked me to lie about Lance taking drugs.

Will they do?

All I have are these suit cases of money left by these strange men who asked me to lie about Lance taking drugs.

Will they do?

Will swap them for the bags of blood in my fridge.

And this idea that Nike knew. What does that even mean?

At the very least it means they didn't care, or didn't even do any due diligence. It's been common knowledge that Armstrong was a doper for over a decade, so anybody who wanted entirely to avoid the reputational damage of being associated with a doping program wouldn't have touched him with a 10 foot pole. All the sponsors were in it for short term gain, calculating that they'd make so much money off him before the shit hit the fan that any losses after that would be inconsequential. Nike have no ethics, they have just calculated that today is the day when they can make more money by disowning Armstrong than they can by sponsoring him.

Nike as predicted was the tipping point; Radioshack , Michelob and breaking news is that Giro have also dropped him

And Virenque, no less self-pitying serial liar than Armstrong, continues to make a living commentating on Le Tour for French TV.

I think that's fair enough and not surprising. That's the way the game is played. You don't sponsor people for their bad press. I don't actually think that's even close to the least ethical thing Nike has done. By fucking miles. In fact, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

But why on earth would they risk themselves by bribing people, or being "in on the secret"? Why would Lance even tell "them"? This is the stuff I don't get.

I think that's fair enough and not surprising. That's the way the game is played. You don't sponsor people for their bad press. I don't actually think that's even close to the least ethical thing Nike has done. By fucking miles. In fact, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

If they're actively supporting a cheater cheating they're clearly in the wrong and will be criticised, even if not by you.

But why on earth would they risk themselves by bribing people, or being "in on the secret"? Why would Lance even tell "them"? This is the stuff I don't get.

It's perhaps more subtle than a 'bribe' and a 'tell'. But if your after a simple answer how about 'millions of dollars'?

You'll find the part of my post which you quoted first was in response to this: "Nike have no ethics, they have just calculated that today is the day when they can make more money by disowning Armstrong than they can by sponsoring him." I have no problem with them making this decision. This is what they would do with any athlete they sponsor. This is what any sponsor would likely do.

But since you've decided to respond with something out of context: How were the "actively" supporting a cheater? Were they buying his EPO? This is essentially my question. And I think you'll find I was asking for the non-simple answer. But you seem more interested in giving pithy answers, so feel free to just ignore me.

Wow. Ok.

I might have misread the tone of your post.

You'll find the part of my post which you quoted first was in response to this: "Nike have no ethics, they have just calculated that today is the day when they can make more money by disowning Armstrong than they can by sponsoring him." I have no problem with them making this decision. This is what they would do with any athlete they sponsor. This is what any sponsor would likely do.

But since you've decided to respond with something out of context: How were the "actively" supporting a cheater? Were they buying his EPO? This is essentially my question. And I think you'll find I was asking for the non-simple answer. But you seem more interested in giving pithy answers, so feel free to just ignore me.

They are accused by Lemond's missus (under oath) of paying Verbruggen half a million dollars to help make his '99 Tour positive eh... become institutionally 'less positive' when a blatantly backdated prescription came along.

Sine then you could argue that Nike have reaped a considerable return on that initial investment and would have continued to do so had be not been caught. So, actively 'supporting' well, if this is true, then yes-they were not only actively supporting but facilitating cheating at the highest level.

Of course, it remains unproven though it seems a bizarre thing for Mrs Lemond to pluck out of thin air when put on the stand, but as history has shown, everyone is out to get Lance out of spite and jealousy and there is never any meat to these rumours.

Real answers are nice. They make me feel warm and fuzzy. Thanks!

Didn't realize the bribery accusation came from Mrs Lemond.

I can't wait for the film version of all this.

The only problem with Kathy Lemond's knowledge of this Nike bribe is that it was via a USPS mechanic, Julien Devriese, who denies telling her.

Can't see it holding much weight.

Trek - just dropped Mr. Dopestrong

http://e.trekbikes.com/public/?q=preview_message&fn=Link&t=1&ssid=357&id=i4rmf025n1uvagotuytdy9518t7x0&id2=e8sqa981ldgj91q1u6s969ng0syqz&subscriber_id=bvgpuohnataebqxrjefyadakjxaybbk&messageversion_id=blhzmcahblqceklsgedwabvikkrpbnk&delivery_id=aczlwuykghrbvldhaibvdxmpugohbgh&tid=3.AWU.Ba36EQ.CSi9.QV1v..kpy9.b..l.BJH1.a.UH9YZQ.UH9YZQ.CtOGSg

Waffa has just released this statement.

But why on earth would they risk themselves by bribing people, or being "in on the secret"?

To answer the second part first, they would have wanted to position themselves with "plausible deniability", which oddly really requires a knowledge of what you're going to be exposed to and how you're going to make a plausible case that you didn't know. Obviously it helps if you can place several layers of separation between yourself and the crooks, so that you can let the ambiguity build up as contractual obligations are passed down, and assurances are passed up, the chain, but you also want to bypass all that informally, preferably secretly but certainly orally rather than in writing, and get the truth direct from Lance to senior management at Nike.

On bribery, it needs a lawyer who has read the full FCPA to decide whether Verbruggen is a 'foreign official' within the meaning of the act, but on my preliminary scan of the matter it is quite likely that the UCI doesn't fall within the scope of the law (and Nike have expensive lawyers, so I'd expect them to have checked). If this is true, Nike have no legal exposure as a result of bribing Henricus, just exposure to reputational damage; they have shown over and over to be good judges of when a little investment ($500k to HV, questionable employment practices at their manufacturing subcontractors) yields such vast returns that a bit of whining from bleeding heart liberals can be laughed off.

The only problem with Kathy Lemond's knowledge of this Nike bribe is that it was via a USPS mechanic, Julien Devriese, who denies telling her.

Can't see it holding much weight.

If in doubt, follow the money. The trouble with wanting your bank not to lose track of your money is that your bank keeps track of your money. If it happened, and somebody wants to know it happened, there will a trail which a forensic accountant can follow. Nike and HV won't have been stupid enough* to make the payment direct and with the reference "Re: covering up Armstrong +ve doping result", but somehow the money will have got from one place to the other, and people will be called to explain what they were buying and selling every time the money moved.

*Well, Nike won't; with HV, all bets are off.

If in doubt, follow the money. The trouble with wanting your bank not to lose track of your money is that your bank keeps track of your money. If it happened, and somebody wants to know it happened, there will a trail which a forensic accountant can follow. Nike and HV won't have been stupid enough* to make the payment direct and with the reference "Re: covering up Armstrong +ve doping result", but somehow the money will have got from one place to the other, and people will be called to explain what they were buying and selling every time the money moved.

*Well, Nike won't; with HV, all bets are off.

Although to be honest I was surprised about how Lance made payments to Ferarri directly....seemed a bit stupid when he'd declared under oath he had no relationship with him. Maybe we're giving them all way too much credit to have some clandestine mooney network....

Right next to Vino!

Lance seems quite brazen.

Casual disposal of syringes in coke cans and the 'zipped lips' on camera incident show he was fairly comfortable, and felt pretty untouchable in the role of The Godfather of cycling.

tbh the whole nike thing is pretty suspect, it seems pretty implausible for such a big company to do something like that. Im with Mark in saying that it sounds like bollocks. In fact it sounds like someone trying to sling a bit of mud back at the mud slinger extraordinaire...

Then again $500k is peanuts for a company like that, they can lose that from accounts pretty easy and it makes sound business sense: protect an investment that makes you millions with a nice and easy one off payment. Even less implausible when that asset is best mates with the CEO. With all the other shit thats happened, this would just fit right in with the narrative

Verbruggen this morning in Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, digging his hole even deeper: "there is absolutely no proof that Armstrong ever doped"

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/13089646/__Geen_bewijs_tegen_Armstrong__.html (Dutch though)

He called the Nike cover up money allegation unworthy of official comment

I've been reading through the ReasonedDecision.pdf and it's actually mind boggling how much he got away with, and for so long.

What I don't understand is aside from the USADA findings there's also been a Federal suit which was dropped. Surely there's more that enough grounding now to for some criminal charges given that he's made a shit load of money from winning races on drugs? Im know Im being very naive here but surely thats fraud? At the very least Perjury?