Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Frank the tank wrote:
Walsh's book is not his first on LA. Yes he obviously want's the book to sell but for him, I believe, it was a calling, to nail the truth about Armstrong in particular and drugs within sport generally. Whilst many have been guilty of doping etc Armstrong took the thing to a whole new level.dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:He was extremely powerful and by all accounts it would appear that he got his way on pretty much everything, with a little help from his friends, and sneaky little payments to keep positive tests quiet etc etc.
David Walsh's book and Tyler Hamilton's book will answer all of those questions.
Can't argue that he was powerful, got his way, had help(maybe not from friends), and wouldn't doubt the sneaky payment thing. That's what cheaters do.
As for the Walsh book, the skeptic in me sees an author who is first and foremost trying to SELL a book. This is true of all authors. Get published. I most likely wouldn't believe everything in a book, confessing all, written by LA himself.
So, believing everything I read, especially a so called "tell all", is way down the list of reliable info for me. He didn't write the book to be be a prophet of the truth, he wrote it so it would sell. For me, that colors the truth a bit.
To say Walsh was only trying to sell his book does the man a great injustice his "pursuit of Armstrong" became all but an obsession and people within the cycling fraternity IMHO owe the man a debt of gratitude. Morality wise he is everything your hero is not.
That's what I'm saying. First and foremost he wants his book to sell. I order for it to sell he knew people wanted dirt. Who's going to buy a nice and cuddly bio of anyone? Authors know this and it influences the way they write. Some more than others. Before he even started writing that book he knew what he wanted in it as a general tone. Before all his investigative work he knew that the book would sell best in a sort of "digging up dirt" format. And it did. Instead of simply stating facts he pushed the dialogue toward the ugly intentionally.
I will admit to not reading this book but what with everyone telling me I should read it and then even I will hate LA, it didn't take me long to figure out that it's not about LA and bunches of soft fluffy kittens and puppy dogs. So, in effect, I have read it.0 -
Lol. Over a decade to write a book, a decade in which he was pilloried by that chump LA, ostracised from other journalists, threatened etc. If it helps read Tyler's book first and then read Walsh's. it's pretty damn consistent in the Armstrong let nothing and no one stand in his way. The one overarching takeout from all the books is that LA was a power crazed bully. You seriously need to understand what the man was about, he ain't no hero man! A great rider, I can't argue with that...but a total c*nt to boot.0
-
And I honestly think you would enjoy them too, I couldn't put either book down. Do it, you know it makes sense.0
-
FTFY. Stop trolling fool.dennisn wrote:I'll read your book if you'll answer all my questions? "But you won't answer them AGAIN,...".0 -
Joelsim wrote:Lol. Over a decade to write a book, a decade in which he was pilloried by that chump LA, ostracised from other journalists, threatened etc. If it helps read Tyler's book first and then read Walsh's. it's pretty damn consistent in the Armstrong let nothing and no one stand in his way. The one overarching takeout from all the books is that LA was a power crazed bully. You seriously need to understand what the man was about, he ain't no hero man!
To address the last part first. I don't have any cycling, or any other sports, hero's. My hero's(if you will) are people in MY life that I feel I can count on. The ones who will come and get me when I break down 40 miles from home. The ones who will help out when I need it. The ones who are "there for me", to quote a overused slogan, and I'm there for them. And last but not least the one who saved my life. No, it's not as you think. There are no hero's, in your sense of the word, in my life. I will admit to thinking, in my younger years, that F-1 driver Jimmy Clark was the king of the world.
Anyway, it seems that you are saying that LA controlled the media, among other things? His list is getting pretty long.
He controlled all the pro riders, he apparently controlled the sanctioning bodies, he made payoffs to bunches of people for advance info on testing, he made payoffs to testing labs and or lab techs, he apparently spent bunches of time threatening people(or did he just use his evil eye), he was in charge of a very sophisticated doping operation, he had a hand in running a cancer charity, he obviously spent a few waking hours each day training for, arguably, the toughest bike race in the world, I would guess that he was constantly in demand by his sponsors, he raised / is raising a family, he traveled extensively, if he had any minions or goons he would need time for them, I'm guessing 8 hours a day would be sleep time, add in a couple of hours for eating, he always had a wife or girlfriend and they demand their share of time, family time also etc., etc. I could go on but you get the idea. If he did all of this by himself, and people seem to credit him with most of it, then he is one hell of a man.0 -
Dennis, Jim Clark was a true gentleman and look at how he behaved on track towards others. All aspects of his life were conducted in a civilised and decent manner. If you had him as somebody you respected, then surely his behaviour alone is enough of a contrast to Armstrong to show you what we are saying.
As I've said above, I was at David Walsh's talk in Glasgow last night and you would do well to try and experience this even if you don't read the books. You would understand part of what David Walsh has been through on a personal level and how Armstrong even attacked this. I am now going to buy David Walsh's book having previously not wanted to due to who his employer is. I now recognise that I was very wrong about this due to what David said last night and am very glad that I have found out my error.
Please take the time to borrow the books from your local library (that way you won't feel you are giving Millar, Hamilton or Walsh any money) and read them to at least allow a more reasoned response to our comments.0 -
dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:Lol. Over a decade to write a book, a decade in which he was pilloried by that chump LA, ostracised from other journalists, threatened etc. If it helps read Tyler's book first and then read Walsh's. it's pretty damn consistent in the Armstrong let nothing and no one stand in his way. The one overarching takeout from all the books is that LA was a power crazed bully. You seriously need to understand what the man was about, he ain't no hero man!
To address the last part first. I don't have any cycling, or any other sports, hero's. My hero's(if you will) are people in MY life that I feel I can count on. The ones who will come and get me when I break down 40 miles from home. The ones who will help out when I need it. The ones who are "there for me", to quote a overused slogan, and I'm there for them. And last but not least the one who saved my life. No, it's not as you think. There are no hero's, in your sense of the word, in my life. I will admit to thinking, in my younger years, that F-1 driver Jimmy Clark was the king of the world.
Anyway, it seems that you are saying that LA controlled the media, among other things? His list is getting pretty long.
He controlled all the pro riders, he apparently controlled the sanctioning bodies, he made payoffs to bunches of people for advance info on testing, he made payoffs to testing labs and or lab techs, he apparently spent bunches of time threatening people(or did he just use his evil eye), he was in charge of a very sophisticated doping operation, he had a hand in running a cancer charity, he obviously spent a few waking hours each day training for, arguably, the toughest bike race in the world, I would guess that he was constantly in demand by his sponsors, he raised / is raising a family, he traveled extensively, if he had any minions or goons he would need time for them, I'm guessing 8 hours a day would be sleep time, add in a couple of hours for eating, he always had a wife or girlfriend and they demand their share of time, family time also etc., etc. I could go on but you get the idea. If he did all of this by himself, and people seem to credit him with most of it, then he is one hell of a man.
I thought you said you hadn't read the books?0 -
You're forgetting the trips to Madrid to see Ufe, aside from that you seem to have got most things spot on. A question for you...are you Lance Armstrong?0
-
Bugger, I'll expect a call from Bill Stapleton then0
-
dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:You're forgetting the trips to Madrid to see Ufe, aside from that you seem to have got most things spot on. A question for you...are you Lance Armstrong?
Yes. And my sophisticated monitoring has all of you covered.
Now I have to hate you too for boffing Sheryl CrowPain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
http://new.livestream.com/ut-comm/events/2050748
Talk in Austin with Greg & Kathy LeMond, Betsy Andreiu and a couple others if ur interested. dunno if its been posted.0 -
Tygart provides an interesting glimpse of what LA could reveal about UCI complicity
in his career. But Tygart has 1 problem....LA has no incentive
yet to confess more but perhaps DoJ will bring out
the full truth if LA goes on the stand.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Tygart provides an interesting glimpse of what LA could reveal about UCI complicity
in his career. But Tygart has 1 problem....LA has no incentive
yet to confess more but perhaps DoJ will bring out
the full truth if LA goes on the stand.
What you say is a possibility but I'm thinking that LA is not going to take the stand and incriminate himself.
Generally speaking, here in the states, it's up to your accusers to provide proof of your crimes.0 -
But how can they do that unless they've had a drink with them and got to know them?dennisn wrote:What you say is a possibility but I'm thinking that LA is not going to take the stand and incriminate himself.
Generally speaking, here in the states, it's up to your accusers to provide proof of your crimes.0 -
he's already committed perjury during one court case and a false claim for libel against the times. Wonder if the dirty money he got off them went to Livestrong or his own pocket0
-
sherer wrote:he's already committed perjury during one court case and a false claim for libel against the times. Wonder if the dirty money he got off them went to Livestrong or his own pocket
To you and I it all appears pretty straight forward. Legalities? Now that's another story altogether. And I do believe that legalities and legal wrangling and who knows what else will produce a final result that I'm sure you, and many others, won't care for. As for me, well, I don't really have anything invested in any of this or these people. When it's all said and done I'll be out there riding my bike. Unless of course it lasts another 20 or 30 years, then I might be just wiling away my time at the old folks home.0 -
Nike cuts ties with Livestrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/28/nike-livestrong-lance-armstrong0 -
interesting.. anyone infer what Lance is about to do? Nothing or?
lancearmstrong 7h
"honestly, i'm sick of the haggling. time to talk straight and help the sport move on"0 -
Looking at his twitter activity there is something very definitely 'going on' with Lance. He's really starting to come back out of his box / out from under his stone etc.
Something big and juicy in the pipeline? I hope so. He's got all the answers I'm sure and could probably do cycling a big favour if he started talking about the Uci. It's about that time.0 -
Looking like a rebranding as repentant doper turned crusader is on the cards. Far too late IMO, but as Dave says, he's got then answer to lots of questions. He's already shaping up the "I was a bit naughty, but all the lads were, just high jinks really" line with his tweets to Vaughters and re Di Luca. A bit remorseful, a bit cheeky, a sly grin, anyone with kids knows the pattern.tremayne wrote:Looking at his twitter activity there is something very definitely 'going on' with Lance. He's really starting to come back out of his box / out from under his stone etc.
Something big and juicy in the pipeline? I hope so. He's got all the answers I'm sure and could probably do cycling a big favour if he started talking about the Uci. It's about that time.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:
Looking like a rebranding as repentant doper turned crusader is on the cards. Far too late IMO, but as Dave says, he's got then answer to lots of questions. He's already shaping up the "I was a bit naughty, but all the lads were, just high jinks really" line with his tweets to Vaughters and re Di Luca. A bit remorseful, a bit cheeky, a sly grin, anyone with kids knows the pattern.tremayne wrote:Looking at his twitter activity there is something very definitely 'going on' with Lance. He's really starting to come back out of his box / out from under his stone etc.
Something big and juicy in the pipeline? I hope so. He's got all the answers I'm sure and could probably do cycling a big favour if he started talking about the Uci. It's about that time.
Yep, sounds about the measure of it.0 -
He's either genuinely relieved to have it out and the open or it's part of his defense strategy. Possibly both.
I wonder if his legal team have a defense based on discrediting the UCI. I.e. the governing body endorsed my activities so how could it possibly have been cheating?
Let's face it, his defense does need something pretty special.0 -
Genuinely wanting to save as much of his wealth as possible, more like. He's hired defence teams in LA, San Francisco, Washington, Texas and London.
The man's a god-send to the legal profession0 -
With the jangly-jangly shiny keys of the new season distracting me, I've hardly given McQuaid, etc, a thought recently: but surely only one comment from Armstrong confirming that he has indeed been holding the Sword of Damocles in the whole UCI cover-up/pay-off story would see a decapitation.
Perhaps Vaughters historical criticism of the UCI, his suggestions for alternative policies/working practices/structures, his apparent bridge-building with Armstrong - and the latter's recent comments - is leading up to something?0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:With the jangly-jangly shiny keys of the new season distracting me, I've hardly given McQuaid, etc, a thought recently: but surely only one comment from Armstrong confirming that he has indeed been holding the Sword of Damocles in the whole UCI cover-up/pay-off story would see a decapitation.
Perhaps Vaughters historical criticism of the UCI, his suggestions for alternative policies/working practices/structures, his apparent bridge-building with Armstrong - and the latter's recent comments - is leading up to something?
Maybe. But say Armstrong says HV and PMQ did X, its still the word of a world-renowned outed liar vs the Terrible Two. They'll just shrug it off and say he's lying, non?
But I agree that it looks as if Vaughters involvement might have some ulterior goal beyond altruism, for sure0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:
Maybe. But say Armstrong says HV and PMQ did X, its still the word of a world-renowned outed liar vs the Terrible Two. They'll just shrug it off and say he's lying, non?
Oh the irony!0 -
morstar wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:
Maybe. But say Armstrong says HV and PMQ did X, its still the word of a world-renowned outed liar vs the Terrible Two. They'll just shrug it off and say he's lying, non?
Oh the irony!
I know. But you get where I'm coming from.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:morstar wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:
Maybe. But say Armstrong says HV and PMQ did X, its still the word of a world-renowned outed liar vs the Terrible Two. They'll just shrug it off and say he's lying, non?
Oh the irony!
I know. But you get where I'm coming from.
Yes, I do. And I suspect the likes of the wealth of supporting testimony that eventually derailed Armstrong would be far harder to produce against Hein and his stooge.0
