Lance Armstrong Won't Fight Usada Charges

[alienator]

Here's another look at the 1999 saddle sore affair and how according to the rules the Armstrong violated UCI rules even if the backdated prescription was accepted as valid: http://inrng.com/2013/01/armstrong-1999-positive/#more-12745 For the cherry on top of the creamy icing covered cupcake, here's some footage from Oprah's interview that didn't make the show: [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUKZD6eqgo[/video]

 

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

hmmm. making me wonder if perhaps oprah isn't doing a fair amount of padding.

No, I'm pretty sure that was all Oprah in that dress. No padding.

Then again, she may fail a surprise out-of-interview wardrobe test that shockingly reveals that she's faked her weight all these years to garner sympathy. Then she'll have a tearful interview conducted by Lance Armstrong about how much good she was able to do with her fake weight and how many lives she changed despite the fact that it was all a lie. Even Steadman will claim to be shocked.

And yes, I do know what you really meant.

 

[jpwkeeper]

Something still isn't right here though.

1. Why would he lie about doping 2009-2010?
2. Why, if the evidence is so clear in his bio passport, didn't he receive an adverse analytical finding? Guys have been busted for MUCH less on the bio passport.

 

[jhuskey]

Wow, pro athletes and entertainers lie? Next you will try and convince me that politicians and the media are less than honest.

 

[alienator]

Something still isn't right here though. 1.  Why would he lie about doping 2009-2010? 2.  Why, if the evidence is so clear in his bio passport, didn't he receive an adverse analytical finding?  Guys have been busted for MUCH less on the bio passport.

Why would he lie about 09/10? Because the statute of limitations is 8 years except in special cases, and he would face additional sanction for admitting as much. That would prevent him from ever coming back, which likely the case any way. In his defective brain, however, he thinks he can still sweet talk or buy his way into having his lifetime ban reduced if he cooperates and testifies in a very small way that doesn't affect his brothers in crime.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Why would he lie about 09/10? Because the statute of limitations is 8 years except in special cases, and he would face additional sanction for admitting as much. That would prevent him from ever coming back, which likely the case any way. In his defective brain, however, he thinks he can still sweet talk or buy his way into having his lifetime ban reduced if he cooperates and testifies in a very small way that doesn't affect his brothers in crime.

You've an "interesting" avatar, Alienator

 

[limerickman]

Just reading Hugh McIlvanney's article in last weekends Sunday Times newspaper (it's a subscription site so I can't link it).

McIlvanney is one of the great sportswriters and he describes Armstrong as a con man.

He thought LA showed no real sign of remorse throughout the interview. He suggests that the "lump in the throat" when talking about his mother and son is discounted by his "non lump in the throat" when discussing O'Reilly, Betsy, Frankie etc.
"It is hard to avoid asking how much compassion means if it doesn't extend beyond one's own family. Even the worst gangsters are traditionally warmhearted about the mothers"

McIlvanney goes on to suggest that Armstrong's view of doping is that doping is as normal as pumping up the wheels tyres or putting water in the water bottle. Doping is something that Armstrong took as being "part of the job".

McIlvanney finishes the article by saying that Armstrong has still not acknowledged the enormity of the effect of his doping and the lies he told In McIlvanney's view, Armstrong showed no scruples in doing whatever he deemed necessary to win - and to then denigrate anyone who actually told the truth about his real character.

It's a real pity that I can't link the article.

 

[alienator]

You've an "interesting" avatar, Alienator

It's homage to a classic movie and an even better book.

 

[alienator]

He thought LA showed no real sign of remorse throughout the interview. He suggests that the "lump in the throat" when talking about his mother and son is discounted by his "non lump in the throat" when discussing O'Reilly, Betsy, Frankie etc. "It is hard to avoid asking how much compassion means if it doesn't extend beyond one's own family. Even the worst gangsters are traditionally warmhearted about the mothers"

That meshes with what Armstrong's ex-mechanic said about the disdain Armstrong showed for Livestrong events.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by alienator .


That meshes with what Armstrong's ex-mechanic said about the disdain Armstrong showed for Livestrong events.

Indeed.

Compassion for one's blood relatives is a given.
The person who claims to be truly compassionate would extend that to others - non blood relations - if they are sincere.

Armstrong is not sincere.

 

[Eldrack]

More news from an earlier era: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-seven-out-of-eight-pdm-riders-doped-at-1988-tour-de-france

Interesting line: "[COLOR= rgb(34, 30, 31)]It remains unclear whether EPO was in use in the peloton as early as 1988". I suspect it was given that trials/industrial production of synthetic EPO started in the mid 80's. It will have taken a few years for it to penetrate the peloton completely to the point where in the 90's everyone was using it but I wouldn't be surprised if a number of riders where using it from '87 onwards even if it wasn't formally made legal in the US 'til 89. And given the performance improvements it brings those riders who were taking it would have scored big results. [/COLOR]

 

[tonyzackery]

Originally Posted by jpwkeeper .

Also, a lot of you on this forum have wondered why he's still lying about doping during the comeback. I've turned it over in my head numerous times and I can't think of a single reason why he would. There's no real results and very little money at stake (didn't he race practically for free during that time?) Why come clean about doping when you won, then deny it when you didn't? So I'm leaning toward believing him, not due to his credibility, but due to any obvious reasons to lie about it.

I'm sorry, but I've gotta cue the ostrich metaphor once again.

By the way, where is that hpearson character? Been awfully quiet...understably so too.

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by tonyzackery .
By the way, where is that hpearson character? Been awfully quiet...understably so too.

most likely figuring out all the problems we display and ginning up some argument to forgive armstrong his many sins.

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by alienator .


It's homage to a classic movie and an even better book.

Indeed my droogs.

 

[limerickman]

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=1

 

[lance_armstrong]

Originally Posted by jpwkeeper .


Also, a lot of you on this forum have wondered why he's still lying about doping during the comeback. I've turned it over in my head numerous times and I can't think of a single reason why he would. There's no real results and very little money at stake (didn't he race practically for free during that time?) Why come clean about doping when you won, then deny it when you didn't? So I'm leaning toward believing him, not due to his credibility, but due to any obvious reasons to lie about it.

This part of the interview really ****** me off. I believed that there was an additional reason for him to deny doping during his comeback besides avoiding an entirely new can of legal worms. In my opinion, Armstrong is kind of saying "Hey, I rode clean in 2009, and still managed to come in 3rd. So, if you think about it, I really could have won some, if not all of those 7 Tours de France without doping."

 

[vspa]

This part of the interview really ****** me off.  I believed that there was an additional reason for him to deny doping during his comeback besides avoiding an entirely new can of legal worms.  In my opinion, Armstrong is kind of saying "Hey, I rode clean in 2009, and still managed to come in 3rd.  So, if you think about it, I really could have won some, if not all of those 7 Tours de France without doping."

like when he said his cocktaill included epo... but not a lot

 

[alienator]

This part of the interview really ****** me off.  I believed that there was an additional reason for him to deny doping during his comeback besides avoiding an entirely new can of legal worms.  In my opinion, Armstrong is kind of saying "Hey, I rode clean in 2009, and still managed to come in 3rd.  So, if you think about it, I really could have won some, if not all of those 7 Tours de France without doping."

You can take that 2009 claim with a very large grain of salt. An expert (Ashendon) says the bio passport values were very, uhm, atypical for a non-doping person, and you can couple that with Sr Fraud quickly abandoning his promise to post all of his blood values online as he trained and raced. It certainly begs the question, doesn't it, "Say, Lance. Why did you so quickly and suddenly end your promise to post your blood values, eh?" My guess is that pretty quickly he realized in training that his bones weren't going to move fast enough to be competitive and thus decided once again dip into the supply of pharmacological magic potions.

 

[oldbobcat]

I'd have been gracious (or naive) enough to let Lance's claims regarding 2009-10 slide, but the Reasoned Decision states it pretty unequivocally.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by oldbobcat .

I'd have been gracious (or naive) enough to let Lance's claims regarding 2009-10 slide, but the Reasoned Decision states it pretty unequivocally.

Indeed, the readings taken from 2009-2010 contradict the data on Armstrong's biological passport, according to the USADA report.

I thought this was funny