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

^She regularly pops up in comments on blogs/article that mention her.

This is good, @Velocentric has spent 6 months looking at Livestrong charity accounts and found some interesting stuff

This is a Charity that underwrote a loan for Armstrongs shop to buy a jet, then leases that jet AND pays for jet fuel.

Blurry lines.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY3jI"]YouTube
- Lance Armstrong collision with spectator 2010 Tour de France[/ame]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmu1CZEN6Yk

When he arrived in Australia for that training race, he said he was donating $50k to the Queensland flood relief fund. It looks like he forgot to pack his cheque book;

http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/initiatives/disaster_recovery/donations.aspx

Quite a good BBC article for those who aren't that clued up (myself included):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/01/lance_armstrong_an_icon_under.html

That's a fairly balanced view.

The one thing that raises my hackles is the repeat of Armstrong's claim that he's the most tested athlete in the world. The US Anti-Doping Agency publishes a list each year of athletes and how many tests they were subject to. Armstrong is in the midfield, he's not even close to being the most tested athlete in the US, never mind the world. It's lazy journalism to take Armstrong's claim at face value and repeat it, especially when it's something you can check yourself in 15 mins.

So you believe he's innocent then?!

What do you think?

Yes.

The latest doing the rounds are that the floating of Demand Media this week (part owned by Lance and pals) who licence the Livestrong brand for commercial purposes will prompt the shaking out all kind of financial shenanigans and conflicts of interest that were left out of the SI article. Ownership of Lance's Learjet is 'complicated'.

And Kimmage's latest article is this weekend.

When he arrived in Australia for that training race, he said he was donating $50k to the Queensland flood relief fund. It looks like he forgot to pack his cheque book;

http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/initiatives/disaster_recovery/donations.aspx

assuming that one of the many companies listed there isn't one of his, of course.

it may JUST be that not all his business interests are named ;

' THE LANCE ARMSTRONG ( THE CYCLIST ) YELLOW WRISTBAND CANCER FUCKER COMPANY, INC'

but, he probably hasn't.

why doesn't someone call him on it on Twitter?

' THE MAKE SHIT LOADS OF PERSONAL CASH FOR LANCE ARMSTRONG ( THE CYCLIST ) YELLOW WRISTBAND CANCER FUCKER & DRUG TESTING COMPANY, INC'

Full company name.

^^go on then.

a bit of landis from the past
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article694622.ece

Curious quote from Vaughters at the end of that piece

• “I believe Floyd is innocent,” he says. “The majority of T/E (testosterone/epitestosterone) tests are overturned at CAS (Sports Tribunal) level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months’ time, but in the short term the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him who have denied, denied, denied. He’s going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him.”
  *
  

quick search and i can't find this mentioned anywhere else - Landis/Kimmage interview.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Originally a mainstream "feature" article in the sunday times, Kimmage has released the whole transcript for real cycling folk to go through and make their own minds up. I am about a third of the way through (copy & paste to ms word it is 68 pages) and there are a few "bombshells" although the word has kind of lost currecny in following pro cycling these days.

It's on the doping thread, but deserves a repost :)

(copy & paste to ms word it is 68 pages)

In 72pt? I read it and it's long but didn't seem that long!

This looks very carefully worded

Armstrong representatives have since issued a document attacking Anderson’s credibility, saying he is a disgruntled former employee and that Anderson never observed Armstrong commit an illegal act, was never requested to perform an illegal act, and never observed Armstrong ingest any prohibited substance

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/interview-former-armstrong-assistant-ashamed-of-working-for-him_158382

In the context of former mechanic not claiming to have observed Armstrong committing an illegal act, or being requested to perform an illegal act, or to have observed Armstrong ingest any prohibited substance. Why didn't they want to deny in black and white that the former mechanic found proscribed substances in Armstrong's bathroom, which seems to be the main substantial claim? Looks like formulaic lawyerese - deny all the wrongdoing that you have neither done nor been accused of, and do it loudly and at length so that people might be fooled into forgetting exactly what you have been accused of.

In 72pt? I read it and it's long but didn't seem that long!

You're doing it wrong.

you should see my margins.

Christophe Bassons nails it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-wont-judge-landis-and-armstrong

“To me, courage is all about overcoming fear, and I was never scared. I was just lucky - I’d had a balanced upbringing, lots of love in my life, and no void which made me want to dope. Refusing to take drugs was easy for me, whereas other people have things missing in their lives which mean that’s not the case. Doping is always a response to a void, a need – whether it’s for money, or success, or love, or something else.

I don’t care what anyone does, as long as they don’t try to stop me from living my life, or doing my job, which is what bothered me about Armstrong. But, again, I won’t judge. With him, I think it’s obvious there was a need for success. His didn’t have a relationship with his father, and his upbringing wasn’t easy, then I think what was already a hard character probably became more and more entrenched in those ways as he got a bit of success with triathlon and then in cycling, plus money and adulation….

Why didn't they want to deny in black and white....

His tactic has always been to say "I've never failed a test" (Even if that's a lie anyway) rather than say "I've never taken a performance enhancing drug in my life"

Even Michael Barry's denial was on the same lines:
"I did not share or use any banned substances such as EPO when i was riding with him"

so he used other *types *of banned substances when he was riding with him and used EPO at other times - just not those two days.