***
Sorry about the tag — the Crow-David entity — but I don't like to add too many new tags, and Sheryl Crow already has a tag on this blog, created back in the day when she was operating as a single entity with Laurie David. Ever notice how Larry David called his wife on "Curb Your Enthusiasm" Cheryl, not Laurie?
Just as Sheryl and Lance are no longer an... entity. Larry and Laurie are now divorced. Here's something funny from Laurie's Wikipedia page:
In an interview with The Guardian in November 2006, David acknowledged that owning two homes on opposite sides of the country and flying in a private jet several times per year is at odds with her message to others. In the interview she notes "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don't expect anybody else to be perfect either. That's what hurts the environmental movement – holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away."That article predates the David entity's split:
Larry's wife on [TV] is a meek woman who spends her days gossiping with friends and worrying about her wardrobe. Laurie, by contrast, is often said to be stubborn, confident and driven - thoroughly focused on the fight. Larry himself says of her, "She's a gal with a mission."
Posts
38 comments:
There is also a former assistant...
My Life With Lance Armstrong
I was Lance’s personal assistant for two years, during the height of his racing career. Do I think he cheated? Yep.
Thinking back on it... how could it have been any other way?
Seven titles.
I don't know who any of them are except Sheryl Crow
My Favorite Mistake
for a former pair still doing favors.
Lance is a hero. He loves the POTUS. We wear the yellow-band in our WH. We hope he will be in Charlotte as we bury the GOP.
Ever notice how you don't hear much about Laurie David since her divorce?
Four people I wouldn't piss on in a house fire.
Well, maybe Larry, but he'd have to tell a joke first so I could remember what I liked about him.
But fuck the rest - glad to hear it,...
Sheryl Crow also screwed the real members of the Tuesday Night Music Club.
What a gal.
DISTRACTION ALERT!
Can't tell you how much sleep I've lost worrying about a bike racer who last won anything 7 years ago.
Lem,
There is also a former assistant...
I read that last night. Wild. It keeps happening like this:
The crowd is yelling, ignoring the obvious, "believing" - only to be made fools of for doing so.
You'd think they'd learn,...
I was reading the article Lem is referring to, yesterday. Pretty damning. That got me thinking about his and Crow's relationship and their sudden breakup and waskind of wondering if it was related to his (probably obvious, to her) doping setup...
Kit,
I was reading the article Lem is referring to, yesterday. Pretty damning. That got me thinking about his and Crow's relationship and their sudden breakup and waskind of wondering if it was related to his (probably obvious, to her) doping setup...
No, she has no ethics. It was more of the he-said-my-arms-were-fat variety. She was with him for two years - more than enough time to talk if she cared.
Crow's an empty vessel, as worthless as Lance,...
During the previous Armstrong discussion, I read the comments and did some of my own googling and reading. Yep, he was doping.
Pretty damning.
Right. The assisant that Lance fired admits he knows nothing definitive, it's just somethink he "thinks." Just looking at that assistant's smug face, I wanted to punch him in the mouth. Must have triggered some memory. Lance once said he'd help him open a bike shop and he takes that as a contract even after his pissed Lance off. Sending along a few authographed pictures for the grand opening is "help" too. Maybe Lance should do that. Might make him rethink that pissy interview too, making the pics worthless.
Seven consecutive wins on a 23-day, 2300 mile race, with two stages up mountains. Let someone engineer another seven time winner and I'll be the first to say that Lance isn't all that.
Last I looked, nothing has been proven yet, so what Ms Crow said was just, "Caw, caw", apparently.
PS As to the David entity, he isn't funny and she's a Lefty pain.
PPS Why wouldn't he name his TV wife Cheryl?
It's a great name, at least for a good wife;
I like the term "obliged". She was obliged to sing.
In this case, it means "chose". I guess sometimes revenge is the best revenge.
I also love the explatnion, "I'm not perfect".
Had anyone accused Laurie David of being perfect?
Repeating myself, this case is bullshit, in Dan Rather fashion, even if it is accurate.
I am very weary of cases, criminal, civil, and teeny weeny sports agency of the federal government type, that presume guilt solely on circumstantial evidence. You are guilty until you prove your own innocence.
This "circumstantial" evidence thing has grown like "Topsy" (guess I'm a racist, eh?) in almost all walks of life today.
The fact is Armstrong, like him or not, managed to win 7 times and never failed a drug test. I don't doubt much he was "enhancing", and frankly, I don't care. It is bicycling for Gawd's sake, not neurosurgery.
That he managed to avoid detection by empirical means for those 7 years is worthy of an award on its own...in a sport where the 2010 winner of the T de F was stripped of his win, and banned for 2 years, by the arbitration group even though the governing agency determined him innocent of doping. He was guilty of looking like he doped.
That a winning cyclist team member is as self aggrandizing as a songstress who stiffs her original group ...now there's a real shocker, who would guess, eh?
Funny how now everyone wants to bash Lance, although he passed every drug test before, during and after every one of the TdF races.
So where is the proof that should be required from the USADA? Oooops, they don't have any. Just testimony from jealous team mates, and comments from a radical leftwinger like Crow.
And what did Lance Armstrong do with his life after racing? Buy luxurious mansions where he could throw doping parties and get cute girls to party with his friends? Nope. No scandal about Lance, who leads one of the cleanest lives of any American athlete. No dead dogs, no being busted for drugs, no running over citizens with his car. Nada.
Instead, Lance Armstong has devoted his private life to helping cancer survivors and trying to get kids interested in a sport once dominated by Eurowennies. Or going on rides with wounded warriors. But I guess that is a big mistake since the Wounded Warrior ride is organized by George Bush.
Maybe if the USADA was not filled with Obama supporters (who actually donated to his '08 campaign) they could go after all the druggies in the NFL.
edutcher wrote:
PS As to the David entity, he isn't funny and she's a Lefty pain.
I'd have to disagree on the funny part. Granted, it's all subjective, but Curb your enthusiasm and Seinfeld were both groundbreaking and hilarious.
Granted, I'd probably hate Larry David in real life. But I give it up to him for his tv shows. His wife was a douche.
I read people for a living and my read on Lance, back when EVERYONE loved him, was he's a fucking phoney. It was a very easy read..very easy.
What's your read on Obama?
"Sheryl Crow was obliged to sing."
No, she was not obliged to to do, or say - or sing - anything at all.
But it's pretty typical of the MSM to claim otherwise.
It's not about the Bike.
It's about the jet. And the publicity. And money. Fame. Revenge. Power.
Also this post needs a bullshit tag. Guilty my ass. She flies her fucking jet to her fucking houses and pretends guilt.
Assholes all.
Maybe itt was the doping. Sheryl probably became jealous because he was injecting more dope than she was smoking.
retire05,
Yes.
I read the article by the former assistant. He admits he has no actual knowledge of doping, and yet is willing to go on record saying Armstrong did it.
My read is that Armstrong is not very easy to get along with, so now the knives are out.
It's amazing how many of the early egalitarians from Jefferson to Napoleon' wife, Josephine, owned plantations and slaves. A similar phenomenon seems to be going on with private jet owners and environmental activists. I daresay that if you did a poll of private plane owners you would find that the overwhelming majority of them believe in global warming and that the sale of SUV's should be curtailed. For the betterment of the environment, they believe that all aircraft maintenance workers should be made to live on or near the airport. Think of all the CO2 that is spewed into the environment on their daily commute. If we all pitch in, we can stop the rise of oceans.
Did Sheryl Crow "sing", as in, spill the beans on her former lover's doping?
Seems to me there's a bit of stretching going on here, and primarily because of assumptions. After all, Crow "sings" for a living.
All we know is that she was interviewed by federal agents who aren't talking about what she said, and nor is her attorney talking about what she said.
retire05 ....your take on measures of Armstrong's character are far more valid, and empirically provable, than all of the accusations combined.
In the world of competitive cycling, I have an acquaintance who will flat out tell you that everyone is doping in some manner, that it is the de facto "leveling" of the field. Given that, he's confounded how Armstrong could win TdF 7 times without a failed test (like the one that took Landis down) if his cheating was even slightly flagrant.
Don't have to like Armstrong to wonder about that feature of all this dust up.
My main objection to it all is the circumstantial nature where you are determined guilty, essentially on hear-say and suspicion, if you do not empirically prove your innocence.
That is ass backwards and all to common place today in various scenarios.
But I repeat myself. As a former soldier and "fed" it is a sore spot with me...ever since the passage and implementation of the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act" ... a law that has no retroactive limitations and requires only hearsay to instigate prosecution. You're a vet and have some war stories...be careful what you tell to whom.
Going after Armstrong 7 years after his last significant anything ...reminds me of the same thing.
Peanut m&m's are good for uphill.
rhhardin said... Peanut m&m's are good for uphill.
No doubt. They're also my favorite MRE for long flights w/o meals. Never leave home without a couple bags of them.
~~I read the article by the former assistant. He admits he has no actual knowledge of doping, and yet is willing to go on record saying Armstrong did it.~~
Other people are on record with detailed analysis of the doping that went on.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Lance-Armstrong-Case-Closed.html?168177146
@Sav ..."detailed analysis?" I just read the two links. More of the same "testimony" without proof. A intravenous injection scar on one guy doesn't establish doping by anyone else.
No doubt in my mind that doping occurs, and that Armstrong likely participated. But, unlike the others, he did not fail any tests. He's either innocent or he got away with it. 7-15 years ago. No matter now. None.
I keep repeating: hearsay evidence is no evidence. In a normal world anyway.
Hey Aridog.
I don't really want to get into a long thing over the evidence, circumstances and smoke. I would just say that direct eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. These people aren't saying someone told them or that they heard LA doped. They were his teammates and team staff for years. Some of them were LA's close friends. If they are lying, then they are lying about themselves and others as well, and doing so under oath.
Not all of Lance's teammates/witnesses failed tests. Frankie Andreu, Jonathan Vaughters and Kevin Livinston never failed despite doping. If the USADA reports are correct, you can add George Hincapie, Christian VandeVelde, Chechu Rubiera, and David Zabriskie to that list as well. To this point, none of them have denied any reports.
I, for one, would like to see the evidence laid out so we can come to more secure conclusion.
Sav, I'm with you on that...I'd like to see all they've got, too. Not taking sides, just saying that with what's out, thus far, it smells kind of fishy. That he's passed all testing does keep me undecided.
Sav ...I, for one, would like to see the evidence laid out so we can come to more secure conclusion.
That IS my whole point. Even this last *witness* doesn't claim he with his own eyes saw Armstrong dope up....just that he *knew* he did it. Am I missing something?
Let's see what is evidence, not just talk. Direct witness testimony has a record of inaccuracy and irrelevance when uncorroborated by empirical evidence. For example [way over simplified]] I say that Joe shot Sam. A couple other people say the same thing. We find Joe, but not Sam. Sam is missing and nobody has said diddly until I speak up. We can't find Joe's gun, or even prove he ever had a gun. What that is all about is I *think* [or allege]I saw Joe shoot Sam, same as others, but we don't have a dead Sam or *anything* else. Do we hang Joe?
As for the others who didn't fail a test, but speak out against Armstrong...what was it that got them caught doping or admit to it otherwise? An acquaintance of mine who is a avid cyclist jokes that a while back you didn't have to know where the pelaton had gone, just follow the trail of syringes and medical detritus. My question is then...why the big deal over Armstrong other than his wins, 7 of them, without technical detection?
As I've said earlier, I am irritated by these kinds of cases due to my own career experiences, and the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Your life can be ruined just by the *testimony* of one other or others, with no shred of evidence otherwise, unlimited in years retroactively. Several lives have been so ruined, even if acquitted...the *stain* is there. There are cases where a conviction occurred deaths in a combat zone without a body or even a name for the deceased. If DoD/DOJ can't convict a perpetrator, they immediately go after supervisors for *covering up.*
Even this last *witness* doesn't claim he with his own eyes saw Armstrong dope up....just that he *knew* he did it.
Aridog, I think you are referring to Anderson the bike mechanic. He wouldn't be a direct witness to doping. His claim from years ago was that he found a Andro in Armstrong's home. I'm sure that isn't part of USADA's case. That said, there are witnesses who say they saw and were part of it.
Direct witness testimony has a record of inaccuracy and irrelevance when uncorroborated by empirical evidence.
You're right. From my understanding, many of USADA's have info--times and dates--that correlate with other evidence. I don't believe they are simply going to say, "yes, I saw him." There are supposed to be blood values from 2009 that point to blood doping as well.
what was it that got them caught doping or admit to it otherwise?
Some reportedly confessed during the federal investigation (Leipheimer, VandeVelde, Hincapie, Zabriskie). Others were revealed by teammates (Livingston, Rubiera). One confessed on his own to the NY Times a few years ago (Andreu). One just confessed recently (Vaughters).
My question is then...why the big deal over Armstrong other than his wins,
I'm certain that had any cyclist come forward and named a team doping conspiracy at his old team like Landis did, the authorities would look into it. Riders just don't do that though. There's a code of silence.
It's important to note that Armstrong--and five others---weren't just charged with doping but trafficking, distributing, administering, encouraging others to use, and covering it up.
I hear your frustration. That's one reason why I would've wanted to see a public hearing with the press all over it. If USADA has nothing then they would be exposed. If Armstrong is guilty, then he would've been.
Sav ...good points.
It's important to note that Armstrong--and five others---weren't just charged with doping but trafficking, distributing, administering, encouraging others to use, and covering it up.
Didn't the Feds drop or otherwise close out that investigation, without charges or indictments? If that is true, why did they discharge the case(s)?
I just can't shake the feeling that the USADA is trying too hard.
Didn't the Feds drop or otherwise close out that investigation, without charges or indictments?
The federal case was a bit different in that it was aimed at misuse of federal funds for the intent to pay for doping. It wasn't about whether Armstrong doped or not since doping is legal in the states and the Feds don't police sporting-rule infractions. Plus, their case was criminal in nature so their burden of proof was higher than USADA's. If they didn't feel they could get a jury to convict, they were better off dropping it. Though a few media outlets reported that most of the attorneys working that case expected indictments when the lead prosecutor ended it. The following link and the three it contains have more on that story if you are interested.
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/was-the-lance-armstrong-doping-case-whitewashed-by-us-attorney-while-investigation-continued?news=844043
Sav ...First, thank you for you time and effort to increase what I know about the cycling issues. It does help, even if I have to change my mind on facets of it all ... which hasn't really occurred yet, but might.
As I've acknowledged, I have a knee-jerk reaction these days to circumstantial cases where nebulous "evidence" allegedly "points" to a "likelihood" of guilt, which frequently evolves to conviction and/or tort success. Double this anxiety for federal cases, criminal and/or civil.
The burden of proof differences bother me when the lessor burden is applied to cases that were or might be otherwise criminal. It is particularly bothersome when criminal cases are adjourned, then a civil case is activated to take advantage of the lessor burden. That, to me in my simple mindedness, is double jeopardy however you slice it.
Cases where criminal conviction is obtained with nothing but circumstantial "evidence" bother me, no...they down right scare me....for reasons I've illuminated previously.
I find it interesting that apparently doping isn't illegal in the USA, so federal law enforcement had to pursue something like a RICO case...which they did not indict on.
However, the USADA proceeds with a "civil" action (?), 2/3's federally funded by White House Office of National Drug Control Policy ...e.g., off-budget via Executive Office, (as if we had one these days?) so I'm left wondering why federal funds are used to prop up an agency that has no criminal prosecution authority, as part of the "Drug Czar" element of the XO? When apparently doping of the type Armstrong is accused of is not illegal in the USA. Must be just me?
In simpler terms, I guess my question really is: what positive result, vis a vis changing a known doping connected sport, comes from the USADA activity?
Post a Comment