Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

tailwindhome

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

The more I think about the interview, the more conscious I become of the evasions and non-answers. His truth will come dropping slowly.

2h David Walsh David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

The more I think about Betsy, the more sympathy I feel for her. She's waited almost ten years to hear him say she didn't lie and he refuses.

meggiedude

iainf72 wrote:

So I guess everyone hoping he'd throw Pat under a bus are terribly disappointed?

......but not surprised.
This is just a case of drip-feeding the info out there and seeing what the reaction is.....not from you and I, but from the various official bodies.
His team will then adjust their strategy to suit.
Its just one big game of chess LA and his team are playing.
S'all about damage limitation and vengeance (when he gets the chance).

MrTapir

Dave_1 wrote:

Am happy. This is not limited confession in terms of admiting he doped in all of his TDFs. But he was short in detail...but he will confess in phases..this is a process. Contrition not shown...but he is gonna bury a load of people when in the USADA and qui tam case or at Truth com. Clean in 2009?

Just reading a bit on the Guardian's page, it says that in reply to the question whether he doped in 2009 and 2010, he said "absolutely not", which contradicts the USADA verdict. He said that he stopped doping in 2005, 8 years ago. Isn't the statute of limitations also 8 years? Absolutely coincidentally of course.

I predict that in 2018 he will admit to doping in 09 and 10 tours.

Trev The Rev

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But that is the most cynical man in the sport's history talking. If you can't believe in any part of it, why do you watch?

I watch because I still have hope, I hoped Landis was real when he made back all that time to win in 2006.

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

I hoped Pantani was real. I hope Wiggins is, I think he is, I want him to be real, but I have been there before so I have doubts.

lemon63

Any quotes from Mr. Liggett anyone?

EDIT: just seen him on Sky - basically saying same as most ie.only scratching the surface, needs to give more detail, names, officials etc

frenchfighter

http://inothernews.tumblr.com/post/4081 ... -armstrong



http://catbushandludicrous.tumblr.com/post/40668860117
http://sandandglass.tumblr.com/post/40676413081

ddraver

^^Gonna be on Sky soon apparently...

iainf72

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Iain - If he's going to name names it's not going to be on oprah is it ? - If he is to answer under oath to USADA/WADA then i think he will...Damage Limitation comes to mind. Just seen Fat Pat's smug statement. I would be careful what he wished for just now, tho Mr Verbruggen must be having sleepless nights.

I don't think Pat is overly concerned. The USADA report didn't dig up anything concrete, Armstrong is offering nothing at this stage, just saying he didn't like the governing body much.

I fear many people have decided what the "truth" is and won't be happy til he says that version of the truth.

Gazzetta67

lemon63 wrote:

Any quotes from Mr. Liggett anyone?

Caught a bit on Sky news - Liggett never called Armstrong by name - he just said that more people must have helped him behind the scene's.

meagain

"Asked if doping was part of the process required to win the Tour, he said: "That's like saying we have to have air in our tyres or water in our bottles. It was part of the job.""

Seems about right. Always has been thus. No doubt always will be. Accept it - or stop following pro cycling. Pantani was I think the only "sportsman" who I ever watched with anything like approaching pleasure and admiration. Fact that he was doped irrelevant at the time and subsequently.

MrTapir

jerry3571 wrote:

Ah, so I was finally right! Glad Armstrong has relieved himself at last. I think that puts him ahead of Basso, Valverde, Contador, Vino and a few others who have been caught for Doping and not admitted. The question is that is Armstrong the new David Miller and going to be the new King of Anti Doping??


Just thought I'd gloat by showing the thread below where I asked the question about LA and Bruyneel and their dodgy looking dominance of the sport; dated August 2008!! 8)

The 2nd comment by spen666 looks very naive today.
viewtopic.php?f=40021&t=12580624&hilit=bruyneel

I noticed one of your further comments on that thread mentioned ex-postal riders that caught/admitted doping, Boonen being one of them. Is that the cocaine or was there something else?

Nick Fitt

bockers wrote:

A great article here in response to part 1 of the interview
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/sto ... -spectacle

Clean on his comeback

The video reels are interesting too, it shows that no US journos have bought it or are won over so far. LA has to provide greater input to how the system worked to the authorities. This is just the beginning, LA needs to be subpoenaed under oath as a next step.

MrTapir

meagain wrote:

Pantani was I think the only "sportsman" who I ever watched with anything like approaching pleasure and admiration.

You mean all other sportsmen/women you hate? Why watch sport then, to turn your own question around?

sbbefc

Tour of Switzerland?

KieranHardman

Saying he didnt dope since 2005 fits into his agenda. When did he start racing triathlons and marathons? He wouldnt want to admit to doping for those races because there is no way theyd allow him back to compete in them.

Gazzetta67

Who's the guy on radio 5 live " Cycling Writer" who apparently is related to Tom Simpson. Dont mention the Amphetamines eh :roll:

blazing_saddles

Overall opinion? A resounding fail:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/motorol ... -interview

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond- ... -admission

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-pr ... -interview

term1te

Did I get it right, the UCI asked Armstrong for the „donation“ in 2005 for the analytical machine? I always had the impression LA had offered them the money out of the goodness of his heart to help catch those darn cheats in the peloton. Did/do they ask all wealthy riders for „donations“, or only special ones?

Gazzetta67

As Brian Cookson said this morning on BBC Breakfast - He does'nt sound sorry - He's sorry he got caught !!! pretty well sums it up for me.

Gazzetta67

Term1te wrote:

Did I get it right, the UCI asked Armstrong for the „donation“ in 2005 for the analytical machine? I always had the impression LA had offered them the money out of the goodness of his heart to help catch those darn cheats in the peloton. Did/do they ask all wealthy riders for „donations“, or only special ones?

Think you'l find it was the other way round - the UCI made a rod for their own back after this admission. nobody in their right minds will trust the UCI fat pat etc etc until their is change at the top.

jerry3571

OK, they've caught LA/Bruyneel etc so what now? Sky? :twisted:

Jerry

Richmond Racer

KieranHardman wrote:

Saying he didnt dope since 2005 fits into his agenda. When did he start racing triathlons and marathons? He wouldnt want to admit to doping for those races because there is no way theyd allow him back to compete in them.

Yeah - and IF he coughs up names to USADA's satistaction AND he gets his ban reduced to 8 years, the ban would start from 05..which would make him able to start competing again this year. However....the blood profiles from 09 should kibbosh that

frenchfighter

Pat McQuaid’s statement in full:

“Lance Armstrong’s decision finally to confront his past is an important step forward on the long road to repairing the damage that has been caused to cycling and to restoring confidence in the sport.

“Lance Armstrong has confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy between the UCI and Lance Armstrong. There were no positive tests which were covered up and he has confirmed that the donations made to the UCI were to assist in the fight against doping.

“It was disturbing to watch him describe a litany of offences including among others doping throughout his career, leading a team that doped, bullying, consistently lying to everyone and producing a backdated medical prescription to justify a test result.

“However, Lance Armstrong also rightly said that cycling is a completely different sport today than it was 10 years ago. In particular the UCI's introduction of the biological passport in 2008 – the first sports federation to do so - has made a real difference in the fight against doping.

“Finally, we note that Lance Armstrong expressed a wish to participate in a truth and reconciliation process, which we would welcome.”

frenchfighter

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... didn-t-say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ja ... -interview
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Bl ... z28hx7K5uV
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/ ... ges_227833

petemadoc

"I view Michele Ferrari as a good man. And I still do,"

WTF :shock:

meggiedude

frenchfighter wrote:

Pat McQuaid’s statement in full:

“Lance Armstrong’s decision finally to confront his past is an important step forward on the long road to repairing the damage that has been caused to cycling and to restoring confidence in the sport.

“Lance Armstrong has confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy between the UCI and Lance Armstrong. There were no positive tests which were covered up and he has confirmed that the donations made to the UCI were to assist in the fight against doping.

“It was disturbing to watch him describe a litany of offences including among others doping throughout his career, leading a team that doped, bullying, consistently lying to everyone and producing a backdated medical prescription to justify a test result.

“However, Lance Armstrong also rightly said that cycling is a completely different sport today than it was 10 years ago. In particular the UCI's introduction of the biological passport in 2008 – the first sports federation to do so - has made a real difference in the fight against doping.

“Finally, we note that Lance Armstrong expressed a wish to participate in a truth and reconciliation process, which we would welcome.”

Footnote from the UCI " ........ as long as it doesn't implicate us"
(OK, maybe I made that bit up )

ddraver

PeteMadoc wrote:

"I view Michele Ferrari as a good man. And I still do,"

:shock:

If he did nt view it as cheating, did nt view it as wrong, did nt feel bad or thought it was "cyclists do", then Ferrari did nt do anything wrong in his eyes...

mfin

Well, to anyone that hasn't watch yet, my thoughts were:

1. the first 5 mins there were plain yes answers to did you take x,y,z to all the drugs and the blood doping.
2. this was stated as from 1995 to 2005
3. He said he didn't dope after 2005
4. He said he was upset at USADA for claiming he did dope after 2005.

...its plain he would not answer the hospital room question at all, and this is linked to perjury if he now admits it... and as a result Betsy has been snubbed so far.

...its also plain that he has massive incentive to claim he did not dope after 2005, and claimed as such, its equally clear that the likelyhood of this being true is naff all.

Its also clear as day that after the first 5 minutes there are stacks of answers which are not getting to the issues, but this was to be expected, there's lots of manipulation in this, and he was not being 'open' in the slightest. BUT, he does get to claim he's being open and fall back on the kind of 'if Ive admitted it, why would I lie more' kind of presentation that we sort of have and probably will have, but that's easy to see through.

(oh, its also said a few times that he doesn't like the UCI or things to that effect, and whilst he didn't implicate them in the donation being part of an agreement with them to cover up Suisse pos, it comes across from his words that he might have other serious issues with them... I think we'll either hear them in time, OR LA will use them to pressure the UCI into reacting towards him in a way he wants).

meggiedude

"At one point, he claimed, he'd even looked up the word "cheating" in a dictionary, and concluded, astonishingly enough, that it didn't apply to him."
LMAO

ddraver

By the way - It's not the best quality (slows down a bit), but if you go on YouTube, the NewsPoliticsNow clips are covering a lot of the big points...

You have to click through them and they re not in order, but...