Lance names names
Yellow Peril
Posts: 4,466
0
Comments
-
Just a bunch of names no-one cares about ... It's Bruyneel that holds the key to all this ...0
-
Is this a nail in the coffin for Bruyneel?0
-
Crankbrother wrote:Just a bunch of names no-one cares about ... It's Bruyneel that holds the key to all this ...
I imagine Landis will be interested in those names as they might end up being joinder in his Qui Tam case.0 -
His continued denials of doping in his comeback years is interesting especially as it was under oath. He really wouldn't want Bruyneel to contradict that.0
-
TheBigBean wrote:His continued denials of doping in his comeback years is interesting especially as it was under oath. He really wouldn't want Bruyneel to contradict that.
For all the USADA 1-in-100,000-chance-he-wasnt claim, I'm still not totally convinced he was. Or at least, anything heavy duty.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:TheBigBean wrote:His continued denials of doping in his comeback years is interesting especially as it was under oath. He really wouldn't want Bruyneel to contradict that.
For all the USADA 1-in-100,000-chance-he-wasnt claim, I'm still not totally convinced he was. Or at least, anything heavy duty.
It's hard to see how he benefits from continuing to lie about 2009/10 if he did dope, so maybe the more likely scenario is that he didn't?0 -
He benefits because the statute of limitations for doping offences is normally 8 years, which still covers the period of his ill-considered comeback.
He's playing a long game in the hope that, at some point, he is allowed to compete in an IOC affiliated sport.
I don't believe for a second that he was clean during his comeback, fwiw.0 -
andyp wrote:He benefits because the statute of limitations for doping offences is normally 8 years, which still covers the period of his ill-considered comeback.
He's playing a long game in the hope that, at some point, he is allowed to compete in an IOC affiliated sport.
I don't believe for a second that he was clean during his comeback, fwiw.
He's got a lifetime ban. The SoL got waived for the reasons USADA laid out. So not convinced how the 8 years SoL consideration still stands up?
If he was doping in 2010, he needs his money back0 -
r0bh wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:TheBigBean wrote:His continued denials of doping in his comeback years is interesting especially as it was under oath. He really wouldn't want Bruyneel to contradict that.
For all the USADA 1-in-100,000-chance-he-wasnt claim, I'm still not totally convinced he was. Or at least, anything heavy duty.
It's hard to see how he benefits from continuing to lie about 2009/10 if he did dope, so maybe the more likely scenario is that he didn't?
He thinks that most people believe things were much cleaner from 2008. If he was able to ride clean and finish 3rd as a relatively old man (before Horner proved what old really is), it implies that he might have done quite well if there wasn't all this doping sloshing around before. That is, he sees it as proof he could have won 7 tours if everyone wasn't doping and it's not his fault. That's why it is quite key.0 -
And this guy still dodges the bullets, I guess.. If you know who I'm talking about..0
-
TheBigBean wrote:r0bh wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:TheBigBean wrote:His continued denials of doping in his comeback years is interesting especially as it was under oath. He really wouldn't want Bruyneel to contradict that.
For all the USADA 1-in-100,000-chance-he-wasnt claim, I'm still not totally convinced he was. Or at least, anything heavy duty.
It's hard to see how he benefits from continuing to lie about 2009/10 if he did dope, so maybe the more likely scenario is that he didn't?
He thinks that most people believe things were much cleaner from 2008. If he was able to ride clean and finish 3rd as a relatively old man (before Horner proved what old really is), it implies that he might have done quite well if there wasn't all this doping sloshing around before. That is, he sees it as proof he could have won 7 tours if everyone wasn't doping and it's not his fault. That's why it is quite key.
why then were his blood values all over the place in the 09 tour? i reckon he was as dirty then as before. most of the rest of the peloton were cleaner, I'm fairly sure.0 -
philbar72 wrote:why then were his blood values all over the place in the 09 tour? i reckon he was as dirty then as before. most of the rest of the peloton were cleaner, I'm fairly sure.
So do I, but then I'm generally quite cynical. I was answering the question of why Lance continues to benefit by lying.0 -
r0bh wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:TheBigBean wrote:His continued denials of doping in his comeback years is interesting especially as it was under oath. He really wouldn't want Bruyneel to contradict that.
For all the USADA 1-in-100,000-chance-he-wasnt claim, I'm still not totally convinced he was. Or at least, anything heavy duty.
It's hard to see how he benefits from continuing to lie about 2009/10 if he did dope, so maybe the more likely scenario is that he didn't?
Don't forget he is a pathological liar.0 -
-
ThomThom wrote:And this guy still dodges the bullets, I guess.. If you know who I'm talking about..
I thought it was a rat
0 -
judging from his interviews it seems like he didn't view what he was doing as doping but as preparing for the race so I think he has convinced himself he wasn't doping on his comeback. There is no way he would have doped all his career made a comeback trained and raced 100% clean for that, he thought he was untouchable and that he had/was going to get away with the whole thing.0
-
Given his track record for telling lies does anybody anywhere believe anything Lance Armstrong says. If he were ever to testify in court he would never be taken seriously.ademort
Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
Giant Defy 4
Mirage Columbus SL
Batavus Ventura0 -
back in the day a Lance thread could have 10 pages by lunch time.
good times“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Lance wants his lifetime ban overturned with any remaining ban being backdated to 2005, his last year of doping. Say, an 8 year ban...
Any admission to doping within the last 9 years and suddenly he'd find the ban knocked on. So if he admitted to doping in 2010, any reduced (say 8 years) ban could see him out the picture until 2018.
Therefore, it has to be "clean in 09/10" probably until 2018 passes!0 -
It has more to do with his lying under oath.0
-
Milton50 wrote:Don't forget he is a pathological liar.
I would suggest that you do a little reading about "pathological liars". For one thing I believe that a pathological liar lies about everything AND with no real reason to do so. While LA most definitely lied about things, I would bet he did it with reasons in mind.0 -
Simple business plan - based upon a huge lie, you raise $50m.
You then tell the truth after eight years have past and lose half of it. Keep lying up to the 8 year window closes for the comeback and you end up with (guess) $20m. All kids/wife/lifestyle paid for. If he tells the whole truth now, he ends up giving more away.
Simple greed.0 -
dennisn wrote:Milton50 wrote:Don't forget he is a pathological liar.
I would suggest that you do a little reading about "pathological liars". For one thing I believe that a pathological liar lies about everything AND with no real reason to do so.
What? A pathological liar is someone who frequently lies even when there is no discernible gain from lying. Falsification becomes a default response.
It certainly doesn't mean that they lie about everything and doesn't mean that every lie they tell brings them no gain.
Not that I was passing a psychiatric diagnosis. It was a passing comment on a cycling forum.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:back in the day a Lance thread could have 10 pages by lunch time.
good times
Yeah, but those threads were performance assisted... Now it's just the background hum of next door watching Jeremy Kyle at too loud a volume.0 -
does show that really all he cares about is himself. When it came to crunch time the Omerta he fought so hard to defend didn't really matter, only his own self centred interests.
I also note that he's only named names in the case against him, he's had months to go the USADA or UCI with this info to help the sport but only spoken out when he has something to gain from it.0 -
sherer wrote:does show that really all he cares about is himself. When it came to crunch time the Omerta he fought so hard to defend didn't really matter, only his own self centred interests.
I also note that he's only named names in the case against him, he's had months to go the USADA or UCI with this info to help the sport but only spoken out when he has something to gain from it.
Everyone is self interested. It's just some people's self interest aligns with others'.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:sherer wrote:does show that really all he cares about is himself. When it came to crunch time the Omerta he fought so hard to defend didn't really matter, only his own self centred interests.
I also note that he's only named names in the case against him, he's had months to go the USADA or UCI with this info to help the sport but only spoken out when he has something to gain from it.
Everyone is self interested. It's just some people's self interest aligns with others'.
True dat0 -
Milton50 wrote:dennisn wrote:Milton50 wrote:Don't forget he is a pathological liar.
I would suggest that you do a little reading about "pathological liars". For one thing I believe that a pathological liar lies about everything AND with no real reason to do so.
What? A pathological liar is someone who frequently lies even when there is no discernible gain from lying. Falsification becomes a default response.
It certainly doesn't mean that they lie about everything and doesn't mean that every lie they tell brings them no gain.
Not that I was passing a psychiatric diagnosis. It was a passing comment on a cycling forum.
Pathological liar = An individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.
Now LA did lie about doping and a few other things but how is that "exaggerated or bizarre"?
It was simple lying, no more no less. I think you heard this word(pathological) and it sounded really nice and evil to you, so therefore worthy of you using it on an LA haters forum.
0 -
He's a pathological liar. We're not going to agree.0
