Armstrong's incomplete confession served him allowing him to justify his doping to his fans and the cancer patients to whom he lied, and the manner of his incomplete confession, i.e. being "interviewed" by Oprah, allowed him to avoid tough, direct questioning. Instead he got large softballs tossed his way. As a bonus, he got to fake cry on TV so that people would think he was contrite and being honest. Armstrong would have been better served to not say anything. With all that said, please show the proof that the level of doping that Ullrich participated in even approached the level of the program that Armstrong helped create and enforce. Please dig up the evidence that shows that Ullrich threatened, intimidated, libeled, and lied about people who didn't follow his script. See, Armstrong did those things. If Armstrong had just been a simple doper, he very likely wouldn't have flayed the way he has.jpwkeeper said:
No digging required, since I never said he did any of those things, nor do I believe he did so. Jan and Lance are VERY different people.
I would only partially agree with this assessment. Lance being a complete a-hole did have a lot to do with his downfall, but I really believe that the bigger factor was winning 7 TDFs in a row. Although the average cycling fan seemed to revel in Lance's domination of the world's greatest bike race, too many insiders saw it for what it really was - a probable sham. His unbelievable time while ascending Sestriere in 1999 prompted a lot of people to say "What the hell?....doping again, already?" One TDF victory turned into two, and then eventually into seven. He rarely had any bad luck, and when he did, he always managed to pull some superhuman performance out of his bag of tricks. It just wasn't normal. Anyone could have one or two great years, but seven?
Ah, it's been a while since we had a true devoted Armstrong saddle sniffer here. Welcome! I know you're confused but here's the deal: Armstrong didn't win a single TdF. If you don't understand then you really need some help. Alas, I don't bash Armstrong at every opportunity, because unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around him. I will however, discuss the Texas Turd when he comes up in threads like this. Say, did you happen to notice the topic of this thread. Let me help you: it's "Lance Armstrong won't fight USADA charges." Damn! That means it's about Armstrong. You should also note that the man whose used shorts you chew did a lot more than dope. If he had just doped that would have been pretty much it. Alas, your cowardly hero did much more, profaning people, threatening people, intimidating people, suing people for daring to tell the truth about him, and so on. Then he topped the whole fetid cake off with a thick layer of pseudo acceptance of responsibility, excuse making, and further lying. The cherry on top was made of the fake tears for all the years that he lied to his children. Sadly for you, everyone does know Armstrong cheated. He is no longer looked at as champion but rather as a purulent scab. The vast majority of the cycling community, including the fans, are glad to be rid of him. Oh, why the **** would I discuss anything about me or what I do with you? Is there something special about you?mmkah said:
You know this is the one of only two threads you've posted in? All your posts are in defense of Armstrong. Talk about single minded.... Why would respond if you didn't care what I think? Are you attracted to me? Do you masturbate when you read my posts? Have you ever been convicted of stalking? Why else would say you don't ****ing care and still follow my posts in this thread like a lovestruck pimply teenager? No matter, I think you should ease up on the violent onanism as it's taking blood flow away from you brain. 95%? That is likely high (It's certainly high compared to previously stated 90%), but even if it isn't, so? This thread isn't about those riders. It's specifically about Armstrong. A fact which you conveniently and always ignore is that Armstrong went beyond simple doping. Come on: if you're going to participate in this specific thread, then you need to look at the totality of Armstrong's actions. Did the other doping riders sue people for telling the truth about them? Did they arrange threatening calls or **** women as Armstrong did? There is no doubt that during the 90's and into the 00's doping, especially the use of EPO, was common. So? Some of those were caught; some died (Pantani); and some are still awaiting justice. More importantly, cycling has started to clean itself up. This is the result of a new generation that wants to be different than the old generation. It's also the result of increased (albeit still short of where it needs to be) and better testing. Note there was not an EPO test for much of the 90's. Alas and again, all of that is a topic for another thread because this is an Armstrong thread. Do you have difficulty reading or a learning disability? I only ask because as mentioned before that this is an Armstrong thread is indicated by the thread title right at the top of the page. I hate to disappoint you, I won't be leaving the site. Perhaps you should expand your vision and try posting in other threads. There are many here, in none of which you've posted any of your 7 posts.mmkah said:
