Liggett re Armstrong
Comments
-
-
The lesson is Phil, don't get into a situation whereby you talk someone up so much that you'd have to retire if they were convicted of drug offences!
I think he could have showed support for Lance, without coming across as a bit of a fool.
Edit: awww c'mon Rick, everyone loves a tasteless joke!You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
I would imagine this is the likeliest scenario and would explain why they've kept a bit shtum about the timing. I do also genuinely think USADA likes going after the big ticket names.Greg66 wrote:ddraver wrote:@Rick - I think DG is close but I'd guess that the GJ got people talking under the threat of perjury adn then they found out how nice it was to stop living the lie - When USADA came calling they were ready to speak openly for the first time. I think it's taken this long for the Omerta to crumble enough basically...
I suspect Rick's point is really this: why didn't the USADA get off their ars* a bit sooner, and do some digging themselves?
I thought GJ was, and stayed, confidential. I'm a little sceptical of the "freed from the constraints of living the lie" line. I (perhaps cynically) suspect that the USADA got hold of the GJ testimony and said to witnesses: "if you recant on this under oath in the future, we will find a way to disclose it and show you've perjured yourself". At least, if I worked at the USADA, that's what I would have done.
As I understand it the reason USADA were not able to act before on tihis is simply resources. The resources that the Federal investigation were able to deploy were way more than USADA have at its diposal. That and the fact that the Fed investigation was able to solicit testimony under oath, with the threat of jail time for non-compliance, has given USADA a bundle of stuff that they would otherwise not have been able to afford to put together.
That also explains why USADA were criticised at the subsequent Court hearing on jurisdiction over there paper handling. There is a slight air of "kids in a sweet shop" about USADA at the moment. I do think there is a risk that USADA might blow it and allow the UCI et al. to squirm out on a technicality. That still leaves us with a turning tide of pubic opinion, but leaves cycling with the same people in charge, and the same people commentating on the people in charge.0 -
Greg66 wrote:ddraver wrote:@Rick - I think DG is close but I'd guess that the GJ got people talking under the threat of perjury adn then they found out how nice it was to stop living the lie - When USADA came calling they were ready to speak openly for the first time. I think it's taken this long for the Omerta to crumble enough basically...
I suspect Rick's point is really this: why didn't the USADA get off their ars* a bit sooner, and do some digging themselves?
I thought GJ was, and stayed, confidential. I'm a little sceptical of the "freed from the constraints of living the lie" line. I (perhaps cynically) suspect that the USADA got hold of the GJ testimony and said to witnesses: "if you recant on this under oath in the future, we will find a way to disclose it and show you've perjured yourself". At least, if I worked at the USADA, that's what I would have done.
USADA took this long because it's taken this long for the omerta to crumble or Lance's power to diminish. JV is no longer under the Trek/Oakley/whatever shadow, thanks to HTC and BMC, nor is Hincapie etc. Lance does nt have that much sway over the sport any more and (more importantly) sponsors and fans are now starting to respect people that come clean rather than throwing them to the dogs - see the reaction to the Vaughters op-ed...
To be honest, I don't think the privacy of the GJ would be broken. Mostly becasue USADA's case would crumble in an instant if it was, and peoiple would be in court on some serious charges!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Not as I thought:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990
"But Usada has not had access, despite requests, to the evidence the Food and Drug Administration investigators gathered, and has built its own case. "0 -
Part of the reason the USADA didn't do anything was because the President was a cyclist who liked his rides with Armstrong. Now there's a different President so the Chicago Bulls can get away with murder (actual murder probably). Their eagerness now is probably political in some way (at a lower level, though) and linked to funding. It's all politics in America.Twitter: @RichN950
-
Phil Ligget wrote:Say it isn't so Lance. Say it isn't so“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
But I’ve been with him on his private jet when he’s been reading stuff on Cyclingnews and he’s gone, ‘god damn it look at what they’re saying about me again’ and he just passes his computer over to his friends.
Well that's swung it for me0 -
ThomThom wrote:
+loads.
If anyone hasnt read this by Ashenden about Liggett and are inclined to give it a read, do!0 -
ThomThom wrote:
Excellent letter that. All those who are shouting "witch hunt" against LA should be made to copy that out, by hand, until the message sinks in.0 -
Much ado about nothing...
Why would anyone expect anything different from Liggett?
What will people say when Bob Roll is interviewed?0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
You guessed correctly. Walsh reported in the ST last week that the riders THEMSELVES asked the usada to be present during the FDA grand hearings.
:0 -
Ligget just tweeted but immediately deleted it, but a few people retweeted it.
"@PhilLiggett: I should make it quite clear. I have no business interests with LA cyclingnews.com. Please retract"
Not sure if he meant that to go public or not.0
