Bravo Tyler!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
...The proper thing to do is to plea the fifth regardless of what you buddy does. ..

That's one view, but it's exactly the view that supports Omerta whether in cycling or organized crime.

Taking the fifth can also be viewed as another form of lying. You know the truth, you're all but admitting you know the truth but you choose not to share the truth when asked. Sure that can be viewed as honorable or as dishonest depending on your perspective. When you child observes a wrongdoing would you accept the 'I know what happened dad, but I won't tell you' answer? I guess you'd pat him on the back and say 'good job son, never rat out someone else'. Actually you might based on your posts above but many would argue against teaching your children that particular ethical code.

BTW, I totally agree that the UCI has enabled and is complicit in the doping problems within the sport. If not via outright corruption in the form of donations and evaporating test results (or accepting post dated TUEs against their written policies) then by turning a blind eye to a known problem. Similarly it's hard not to look closely at team management and their involvement whether explicit as many including Tyler have claimed or implicit. But again the extent of involvement by managers and governing bodies won't be understood unless riders have the courage to break omerta, not take the fifth, and tell the uncomfortable truths. If it's honorable to protect a friend and fellow rider by taking the fifth, is it equally honorable to protect team doctors overseeing transfusions or governing bodies selectively enforcing the rules? If so how does the culture of doping ever change, it's only the insiders that know the truth and if they're bound by your honor code to never speak that truth then nothing will ever change.

Cycling's omerta has the unspoken truth that you'll be thrown under the bus if you are unlucky enough to get caught and you'll be breaching some code of ethics if you actually tell the truth. Your posts support that viewpoint and defend it as the honorable thing to do, since when is covering up for known illegal activities honorable?

-Dave

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I got my facts straight, you are missing my point or maybe I have not made it very clear. My issue with WADA and UCI has nothing to do with Lance's situations it has to do with my disdain for the incompetence of WADA and UCI in being able to address doping in this sport and claiming they had. They really have contributed to all these young men hanging themselves and are responsible for all the fallen glory and should be ashamed. I saw a video by the president of WADA last night stating they don't have their hands around this and it is easy to beat out tests! THANKYOU! Then you can hardly blame the riders! All it takes is one guy using EPO and the dominoes fall.

The "fact" of yours that I took issue with is that you seem to think WADA and UCI are on the same page -- I know I am repeating myself here. WADA's reason for existence is to have a central agency for anti-doping having international jurisdiction -- to endeavor to have a consistent standard against which to measure all athletes. UCI governs cycling, period. The UCI set the silly hc limit. WADA did not. That it is easy to beat out tests is a limitation in the science of anti-doping tests. It is not a shortcoming of WADA.

BTW, here is Verbruggen (former UCI president) is defending Armstrong, which is inappropriate, given the conflict of interests:
cyclingnews.comverbruggen says armstrong never never never dopedOpen ↗

We can hardly blame the riders? Like I said, individual riders feeling the immense pressure to dope, etc. I get it. I would, however, treat LA diffently for various reasons I have mentioned before.

On your second point, again, I must of failed to make mine. Integrity is not employed based on the actions of others, it is a code of ethics you live by despite the actions of others! This I assume you understand. If you are called and put under oath and asked if you cheated on you taxes and then you are offered a deal if you rat out you buddy (and you know that he did) what would you do?

You made your point very clearly. You seem to have missed mine. I don't think it fair to expect someone to risk jail time with a lie (and silence, when you know the truth, is a lie), and obstruction of justice in the context of a grand jury inquiry. The grand jury inquiry is not the place where deals are made. Deals might be made in order to get a lesser sentence in return for evidence helpful in another investigation -- that is not the situation here. Here, no one was being investigated except Armstrong and USPostal. Questions are asked under oath and that is it. Tyler was not offered a deal to implicate Lance. They asked him of he saw Lance dope. If the answer "yes" is the truth, any other answer is a lie.

Your analogy about getting a deal to rat out a buddy does not apply here.

The proper thing to do is to plea the fifth regardless of what you buddy does. If you go to jail for not talking cause your buddy does not step forward then yeah, you should find a new buddy but you don't rat him out cause it is against YOUR code of ethics! You don't say well if he is going to be unethical, I will too. That is not how it works. Play ground rules are different. You don't just have integrity when everyone else is playing fair. The lack of fair play defines it! Granted, this uncommon integrity but never the less is the gold standard. SO YES I AM SAYING THAT!!!! But further, I hold a man less in contempt for talking to federal investigators and declining to comment in public than one that appears on 60 Mins.

According to you, if your buddy does not do the right thing, you stay in jail, but you have done the honourable thing. You have protected a liar and cheater, and you have screwed yourself and the people that depend on you (family, kids, etc.). We simply have different opinions and priorities I guess.

Let me say int again, If GH was going to jail for Lance and Lance did not stand up and say yeah I doped to get GH off the hook, then we are in a whole different level of pond scum!!! And yes Lance could help HC in that situation by coming clean. GH would not go to jail, rather be help in how high a regard as a man of integrity. Damn high in my book! Lance probably to for finally coming clean to save a friend

If your scenario is right, having confirmation that LA is pond scum would be of very little consolation to GH. GH being held in high regard by you specifically, would not be much consolation either. But to be fair, I don't know you and maybe you and GH are close friends/associates.

I dont really view Lance any different than other rider. I now he doped and I know he lied. I am a fan of all the other great riders that dopped and lied. By not being able to eliminate it from the sport it became part of the sport. He is just the biggest name the sport has ever seen maybe any sport has ever seen. Circumstances dictated much of his fame. Given a level playing field where every rider is clean does Lance win 7. I could make that argument. Hinault was the only one I can think of with similar intensity and I pick Lance over Hinault.

LA is different from most other doped riders. He didn't just dope -- he aggressively enforced the omerta to the detriment of those who spoke out. Please tell me what you think about this? Is this "honourable" behaviour? Does this show integrity? You speak of integrity, after all.

The question I have is for the people that hate Lance and Bravo Tyler. Ethically they are the same, until last week when TH set a new low. Is it envy or is that eventually America loves tearing down a winner.

Ethically, they are not the same. Tyler came clean. He apologized. This does not lessen what he did, but it shows who he is (yes, there might be some financial incentive/book deal/etc., which is an arguable point). Lance Armstrong has shown who he is a well, hasn't he?

Like I said you don't know me and I dont know you but love this topic and like stirring the pot to get people to comment!!! I supposed to be fun and a bit argumentative in my book! At least thats my flavor.

We agree. Fun and argumentative. Always entertaining and engaging. I meant what I said when I thanked you for your contribution to this thread.

Oh and yes I am a very rare a delicate flower!!!!

um.... okay.

My response/comments are in the quote and in bold.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's one view, but it's exactly the view that supports Omerta whether in cycling or organized crime.

Taking the fifth can also be viewed as another form of lying. You know the truth, you're all but admitting you know the truth but you choose not to share the truth when asked. Sure that can be viewed as honorable or as dishonest depending on your perspective. When you child observes a wrongdoing would you accept the 'I know what happened dad, but I won't tell you' answer? I guess you'd pat him on the back and say 'good job son, never rat out someone else'. Actually you might based on your posts above but many would argue against teaching your children that particular ethical code.

BTW, I totally agree that the UCI has enabled and is complicit in the doping problems within the sport. If not via outright corruption in the form of donations and evaporating test results (or accepting post dated TUEs against their written policies) then by turning a blind eye to a known problem. Similarly it's hard not to look closely at team management and their involvement whether explicit as many including Tyler have claimed or implicit. But again the extent of involvement by managers and governing bodies won't be understood unless riders have the courage to break omerta, not take the fifth, and tell the uncomfortable truths. If it's honorable to protect a friend and fellow rider by taking the fifth, is it equally honorable to protect team doctors overseeing transfusions or governing bodies selectively enforcing the rules? If so how does the culture of doping ever change, it's only the insiders that know the truth and if they're bound by your honor code to never speak that truth then nothing will ever change.

Cycling's omerta has the unspoken truth that you'll be thrown under the bus if you are unlucky enough to get caught and you'll be breaching some code of ethics if you actually tell the truth. Your posts support that viewpoint and defend it as the honorable thing to do, since when is covering up for known illegal activities honorable?

-Dave

Very good adn well-thought-out. I agree.

SPOC, Indeed I stand corrected.

MY responses to your responses in BLUE.

The "fact" of yours that I took issue with is that you seem to think WADA and UCI are on the same page -- I know I am repeating myself here. WADA's reason for existence is to have a central agency for anti-doping having international jurisdiction -- to endeavor to have a consistent standard against which to measure all athletes. UCI governs cycling, period. The UCI set the silly hc limit. WADA did not. That it is easy to beat out tests is a limitation in the science of anti-doping tests. It is not a shortcoming of WADA.

LOL - what fact??? Never said, nor even implied, and not even sure what you mean when you say that I think that UCI and WADA are on the same page. In case you are better at math than reading lets try this.

100% of the riders doping in the sport = WADA and UCI are completely ineffective. Don't read between the lines, don't interpret what you think I mean, dont pretend you know I have some other agenda, dont deflect to a slightly different topic and spit out a few facts. WADA and UCI are an embrassement and have failed all these young riders and carry responsibility for it..

You made your point very clearly. You seem to have missed mine. I don't think it fair to expect someone to risk jail time with a lie (and silence, when you know the truth, is a lie), and obstruction of justice in the context of a grand jury inquiry.

The grand jury inquiry is not the place where deals are made. Deals might be made in order to get a lesser sentence in return for evidence helpful in another investigation -- that is not the situation here. Here, no one was being investigated except Armstrong and USPostal. Questions are asked under oath and that is it. Tyler was not offered a deal to implicate Lance. They asked him of he saw Lance dope. If the answer "yes" is the truth, any other answer is a lie.

Your analogy about getting a deal to rat out a buddy does not apply here.

What are you talking about????? Dude listen!
cbsnews.comwatchOpen ↗ scroll to 17:35. Government gave TH immunity for his testimony. They are all getting immunity to rat out a buddy. It is absolutely the situation here. Fair? It is more than fair. Raise the bar SAPP!

According to you, if your buddy does not do the right thing, you stay in jail, but you have done the honourable thing. You have protected a liar and cheater, and you have screwed yourself and the people that depend on you (family, kids, etc.). We simply have different opinions and priorities I guess.

Honor and integrity come before family and personal comfort SAPP!!!! Ask Nelson Mandela, Ask Ghandi if Nelson cant clear it up, and if Ghandi can't convince you, try JC.

If your scenario is right, having confirmation that LA is pond scum would be of very little consolation to GH. GH being held in high regard by you specifically, would not be much consolation either. But to be fair, I don't know you and maybe you and GH are close friends/associates.

Okay One more time SAPP

You cheat on your taxes and your best friend cheats on his and you did you taxes together. Your are asked to give testimony in exchange for immunity about your best friend's fraud. You take the immunity and they indict and convict your buddy and his family is destitute cause of it and you go to bed that night and sleep like a baby, satisfied you have been honorable and brought a liar and a cheat to justice. Wow what a great family man!

Or, you look the federal prosecuter in the eye and say "I will answer under oath about my tax fraud but no one elses". You can't abandon your integrity because othesr are not acting with integrity and you might get screwed? The problem is that you see TH actions as righteous cause you cant stand LA. TH doesn't hate LA in fact just the opposite. It is clouding your perspective.

LA is different from most other doped riders. He didn't just dope -- he aggressively enforced the omerta to the detriment of those who spoke out. Please tell me what you think about this? Is this "honourable" behaviour? Does this show integrity? You speak of integrity, after all.

Once again check your facts dude. I never said Lance is completely honorable man or has integrity. Your letting your hatred for Lance run a muck. My issue has always been with Bravo Tyler not that Lance is a saint!

Ethically, they are not the same. Tyler came clean. He apologized. This does not lessen what he did, but it shows who he is (yes, there might be some financial incentive/book deal/etc., which is an arguable point). Lance Armstrong has shown who he is a well, hasn't he?

Tyler came clean? Yeah for immunity and 60 mins segment. Dude you are still hung up on the doping. TH did not have to go on 60 mins SAPP, but your right it did show who he is! Having said that watching the interview for the second time I did feel bad for Tyler. I think he is just weak and misguided not maliscious. Indeed Lance has shown himself too. He has survived cancer and has done propably more than any other single individual in fight to defeat cancer, he is arrogant, self absorbed, passionate compassionate, faithful, unfaithful and a liar and probably delusional.............

We agree. Fun and argumentative. Always entertaining and engaging. I meant what I said when I thanked you for your contribution to this thread.

I believe you did! "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another"

Dude, let's agree to disagree. I will, however, stand corrected by you regarding Tyler getting limited immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony. In that sense, Tyler did "rat out" Lance, to use your phraseology. It doesn't change much else for me though.

Looking forward to how this investigation unfolds. I am sure we will spar some more later. 😉

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by vspa [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

so in 2003 Tyler came up to the front guys in Luz Ardiden and express anger for their unfairness for not waiting on Armstrong after his small fall, and now this... how loyal a friend...
people will eventually do what is more convenient to them and forget the rest of their entourage, sad fact of modern life,

That was a bogus move by Hamilton. Not sure what he was trying to do but as I posted years ago. Hamilton was 1 minute back from Ullrich when Armstrong fell and yet he was able to catch a full out Ullrich so quickly? Of course if this goes bad for Armstrong I don't think such small details will matter in the long run It all depends on how the media reacts.

Lol, Right! we should probably get back to work!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Lol, Right! we should probably get back to work!

O.K., I want both of you to shake hands.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by jhuskey [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That was a bogus move by Hamilton. Not sure what he was trying to do but as I posted years ago. Hamilton was 1 minute back from Ullrich when Armstrong fell and yet he was able to catch a full out Ullrich so quickly? Of course if this goes bad for Armstrong I don't think such small details will matter in the long run It all depends on how the media reacts.

I thought Ulrich said he was waiting and LA said he believed him, no?

cyclingnews.comarmstrong attorneys said to have suggested joint defence with hamiltonOpen ↗

can armstrong be more predictable? just like his lawyers' and his fishing for what others would state in the sca promotions case, armstrong trying to control the damage by making hamilton a co-defendant and thereby limiting what hamilton could state before a grand jury. all this wriggling, finger pointing, & smearing because he is willing to stand on the record of his 500 tests? something is rotten in the state of texas & methinks the "champion" doth protest too much.

In the Irish edition of the yesterdays Mail on Sunday newspaper, Declan O'Kelly writes about a recent incident between Armstrong and Hamilton.

According to the article the incident took place when the two men bumped in to each other recently at Cache Cache restaurant in Aspen Colorado.
Chris Manderson, Hamilton's lawyer, said that Armstrong told Hamilton "we're going to destroy you on the witness stand and we're going to make your life hell"
Hamilton immediately informed his lawyers who in turn informed the federal authorities.