Lance Armstrong.

(257 Posts)
diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 08:23:19

What on earth is going on?

If he hasn´t failed a drug test, how can he be found guilty just because he can´t be bothered to fight any more?

Is it an admission of guilt?

If the USADA has evidence-where is it-why haven´t they produced it or is it all just rumour/hearsay?

Gigondas Fri 24-Aug-12 08:28:38

guardian article

I think I agree with some of this but I am still taking it in as such a lot to get my head round.

I don't think it's an admission of guilt on the face of it. The USADA says it has 10 former team mates willing to testify against him so I suppose that is evidence.

Some say the said team mates have been coerced.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 08:32:52

"The USADA says it has 10 former team mates willing to testify against him so I suppose that is evidence"

But isn´t it just hearsay?

If there is no proof that he failed a drugs test?

The BBC article has a whole different feel to the Guardian one.

Here

AmyFarrahCooper Fri 24-Aug-12 08:36:55

I so hope Bradley Wiggins is clean.

I fear that this will do damage to all the people who have become newly interested in cycling since the Tour and the Olympics.

The timing is terrible.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 08:54:35

But to me, the fact that he won´t fight anymore means nothing-unless they prove that he was using drugs.

I suppose what I don´t get are-what are the charges that they are bring?

If they can´t prove that he was "doped" at the time of his wins-how can they take the titles away?

Also-can they give the titles to someone else without proof that they weren´t "doped"?

I'm not the best informed person but I agree that without proof they can't say for sure that he's guilty.

Also I'm not sure they have the authority to strip him of his titles.

When dh wakes up I'll ask him as he's far more knowledgeable about it all.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 09:03:55

I´ve just read a comment by a reader in the DM blush which says that some blood from 1999 was retested in 2006 & was found positive for EPO.

If so, then why wasn´t he stripped of the title for that year?

MisForMumNotMaid Fri 24-Aug-12 09:08:03

It does seam to have been a long witch hunt. Bad for sport, very bad for him and his family, bad for the justice system. It does seam that money and justice are increasingly interlinked.

wannaBe Fri 24-Aug-12 09:09:00

I think it is as good as an admission of guilt.

I was very hmm at all the talk of how people were up against him; how they were prepared to speak out against him; it just seemed like a bit of a witchhunt to me at the time.

But it just doesn't add up to me that you would be prepared to forfit your whole reputation, everything that you'd worked for and believed in purely because you just couldn't fight any more - given there was apparently no evidence.

My guess is that something new was about to come to light that he didn't want known. At least if he gives up before that he will retain some supporters, whereas if his guilt is proven he will lose that too.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 09:11:31

But I think that if there is evidence-then it should be shown & there shouldn´t be room for doubt.

I think it gives a crap message that if he gives it all up they won´t prove his guilt.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 09:13:00

And why would they give him that get out if they so badly want to show his guilt?

Catkinsthecatinthehat Fri 24-Aug-12 09:15:16

Lance Armstrong's official statement here

wannaBe Fri 24-Aug-12 09:15:24

should they though?

If a criminal doesn't contest the charges against them it isn't then up to the courts to prove they were guilty - someone is innocent until proven guilty yes but if they don't contest that then the courts don't present the evidence to prove the guilt - they just act accordingly.

It is one thing to say "I am innocent, you need to prove that I am guilty, present the evidence you have and I will fight it," it is quite another to say "I am innocent, but ok, I will accept that you are going to strip me of my titles, ban me from cycling for life and destroy my entire reputation." That just doesn't add up.

NoNoNoMYDoIt Fri 24-Aug-12 09:18:17

listening to the BBC news this morning, it sounded like more of a juridicial decision to give up the fight. to me it has the feel of a witch-hunt. not that i am saying he isn't guilty. no smoke without fire, i guess. but there seems such a desperation to strip him of titles etc, and it's not even clear that they have the authority to do that.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 09:22:06

But it´s not a legal thing in that he has been charged & brought to court, is it?

What I mean is if they think he was doped then why don´t they have to prove it before stripping his titles?

Why should he have to defend himself before they have shown evidence?

Pedallleur Fri 24-Aug-12 09:34:27

it's a long running saga. he never failed a drugs test but there are ways around them (or were). His medical condition had allowed for certain drugs to be used anyway but he was also involved with a character called Michele Ferrari a coach/Doctor whose speciality is improving performance. Various ex-team-mates have talked about some of this stuff but they weren't v.reliable. The best thing to do is to let the affair go. He was of his time and the other people he competed against were equally guilty and a lot of them have not been brought to task

HalleLouja Fri 24-Aug-12 09:39:30

But do the US people have the authority to strip his titles? I read an article about the Sky Team and the guy who runs it saying he didn't want to get into road cycling until it was clean. So don't think LA was the only one (if he was at all) not playing by the rules.

Ok by not fighting it is in effect an admission of guilt. There is the argument that as they were all doing it at the time it was still a level playing field so his titles are still deserved.

The USADA has no authority to strip him of his titles and there is no guarantee that if this happens the riders they are awarded to will have been clean.

By doing it this way and not contesting the charges it prevents a string of high profile riders giving evidence that they saw Armstrong doping. This would be incredibly damaging to the sport. By avoiding this Armstrong may still have some reputation left and it will all die down in a couple of days.

mummytime Fri 24-Aug-12 10:06:04

If you want to know more it's useful to read David Millar's autobiography, EPO is very hard to find directly. Millar argues that the best thing would have been/be to have regular blood tests to look for changes in thing like Red Blood Cell count.
It is also clear that at that time it was standard for cyclists to be injected with vitamins (not illegal) after races.
However the other thing in his Autobiography is that the training was lacking, cyclists would often be required to do too many races, not given time to recover from injury and even not given crucial equipment such as body suits and time trailing bikes.
But in Lance's case it sounds as of the US authorities are saying thy will do things they don't have authority for.

Pedallleur Fri 24-Aug-12 10:08:40

He can in theory lose the titles as the US authorities who licensed him to race are tied in with the Euro ones. He was in an era when most if not all his rivals were taking something and he was the best out of them. Cycling has a long history of drugs (as have certain other sports) and the 80s - mid 2000s saw a rapid development of new drugs and usage techniques and detection. There were no rules but two - don't ask/don't tell

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 10:21:01

OK-this is going to sound stupid-but what is he fighting iyswim?

Surely there either is, or is not, proof?

There are rumers that Lance's influence is so strong that he has managed to persuade people to suppress the evidence in the past.

Pedallleur Fri 24-Aug-12 10:38:08

He is indeed v.influential with an army of lawyers and supposedly a 'strong' personality. He has tried various legal means to stop this case proceeding and prob. some roundabout ways as well. There is proof supposedly from witnesses to the practices incl. a couple of v.reliable team mates. It's a long -running story that needs reading if you can be bothered. Yes, he probably (almost certainly) was boosting his performance but so were his rivals and it was 'acceptable' in certain quarters but don't talk about it.

somebloke123 Fri 24-Aug-12 10:53:31

If he is stripped of his titles, who if anyone will be instated retrospectively as winners for those years?

An obvious answer might be whoever came second. For example I think Andy Schleck was later given the title after Contador was disqualified after "winning" a couple of years ago.

But if most people were at it anyway then the decision might be a complicated one.

ChairOfTheBored Fri 24-Aug-12 11:13:13

I really don't know what to think about all of this. As a cycling fan the whole 'Lance issue' has been hanging over the sport for so long now. Maybe this will mean it dies down and we can get back to focussing on the sport, which is now undoubtedly much cleaner than it ever has been (and potentially cleaner than lots of sports which don't get nearly the same level of scrutiny as cycling).

I don't know that the USDA have the right to strip him of the TdF titles, and even if they do, who wins? In a literal sense do we know enough about who was racing clean back then to declare a winner, or do we just have to right off an era of racing, and look to the future of a cleaner sport, thanks in part to those who did once dope but now commit much effort to cleaning up the sport (David Millar and others). If there is one criticism of Lance it is that irrespective of his doping status, he could have been much more active in helping the sport clean up in the past 10 years.

The biggest issue with this outcome for me is that it means the whole question remains unanswered. Those who believe, passionately, that he did dope will continue to do so, and those who protest his innocence won't have changed their minds.

And so it continues.

wannaBe Fri 24-Aug-12 15:25:10

USADA have said that they are going to reveal their evidence anyway. And the world anti doping agency head has said that Armstrong should be stripped of his titles.

I just don't know why someone would be prepared to give up everything they had worked for over the years, through adversity etc, give up their titles, affect their own reputation, affect the reputation of their charity (and people will think twice about giving to his charity because of this). It doesn't make any sense.

Tiago Fri 24-Aug-12 15:37:08

"I just don't know why someone would be prepared to give up everything they had worked for over the years, through adversity etc, give up their titles, affect their own reputation, affect the reputation of their charity (and people will think twice about giving to his charity because of this). It doesn't make any sense."

Actually it does make pefect sense. It has been going on for years, has to be causing him stress, draining the enjoyment out of his life, and would require him to fight a case where it will be 'he said, she said' with people giving 'evidence' against him after they have been offered deals by the prosecutors.

His position, from his statement, is that he knows he is innocent, but no longer has the energy and will to fight. It amazes me that people have decided that it is an admission of guilt - I read it as an admission of litigation fatigue. He has had enough.Nothing he says apparently makes any difference so he is choosing to walk away.

diddl Fri 24-Aug-12 16:23:50

Oh yes, I can quite see why he might have given up & it not be an admission of guilt.

If his titles are taken away though, I will be thinking that there is something.

EldritchCleavage Fri 24-Aug-12 17:09:06

*I´ve just read a comment by a reader in the DM blush which says that some blood from 1999 was retested in 2006 & was found positive for EPO.

If so, then why wasn´t he stripped of the title for that year?*

For a positive test to result in a ban there must be enough of the sample left for teh athlete to be able to do his own independent tests, I think. So when you give a sample it is split into A adn B. Both are stored away in a lab. The doping authorities test sample A. The athlete can commission tests into sample B from an independent lab. You are only banned if BOTH tests are positive (remember British Athlete Diane Modahl? I think she was told she'd failed but the B test came up negative and she was reinstated.

The French (not biased at all, oh no) hauled out a lot of LA's historic B samples and apparently they came up positive for banned substances/blood doping. LA could not face any action over this because there was no sample left for independent testing. But it fueled the French antipathy to him because they felt they'd demonstrated he wasn't clean.

wannaBe Fri 24-Aug-12 17:34:58

nope, makes no sense.

You can't have it both ways - either he is innocent and is prepared to fight that to maintain his reputation, or he's not and he's prepared to give up the fight and essentially admit his guilt.

It all seemed a bit dodgy at the time there appeared to be questionable evidence and he was maintaining his innocence, but at the point he held his hands up and said no more he as good as admitted guilt IMO. You can't just say "well, I didn't do it, but here, here's all my titles and medals and the x amount of money (he will have to repay that too) that I earned during my time in the tour, but I didn't do anything, honest," and expect people to believe that.

Nancy66 Fri 24-Aug-12 17:53:56

There's been a big question mark over Armstrong for many years. I suspect he probably is guilty.

From a drugs perspective the Tour de France has always been a very dirty race.

onedev Fri 24-Aug-12 18:02:38

I agree with Tiago though - litigation fatigue wouldn't surprise me. If they were all at it, it really seems like a witch hunt & that must take its toll.

I feel disappointed all round really.

cartimandua Fri 24-Aug-12 18:11:05

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

TheDoctrineOfEnnis Fri 24-Aug-12 18:17:29

But wannabe someone has to actually plead guilty in court for there to be no case at all made. If they just refuse to talk in court or whatever (apart from being in contempt of court maybe) then wouldn't all the other evidence be gone through anyway to determine guilt or innocence?

Isn't this more like a libel case where a newspaper might settle out if court but still maintain they weren't in the wrong?

albertswearengen Fri 24-Aug-12 18:17:54

There are 10 of his former team mates who are willing to testify that he doped. The USADA have blood samples from 2009 and 2010 which are "fully consistent" with doping. Armstrong is notoriously litigative and has had a large team of lawyers working for him for years. Strange he suddenly doesn't want to use them. If he contests it everything will come out and his reputation will never survive. If he does this then there will be people who believe it is all one big conspiracy.
By all accounts he is arrogant and a bully. You should read what happened Greg Lemond when he spoke out about Armstrong's association with Michael Ferrari. The argument that he had to dope because everyone else did it is no defence. It was illegal and wrong and he gambled on the fact he wouldn't be found out.

albertswearengen Fri 24-Aug-12 18:18:59

Michele not Michael. My inlaws have been here too long.

cartimandua Fri 24-Aug-12 18:54:44

Yes indeed, Albert. This is a man who is not afraid to use the law to intimidate and silence. Litigation fatigue has nothing to do with it. The fact is that for once he can't call the shots. He is not the one in control any more, so he won't play. He is trying to prevent the truth coming out and trying to retain that good old plausible deniability. "Most tested athlete" - he wasn't. "Never failed a drug test" - he did. Now we will have "Never found guilty".

By the way, USADA is the Anti-Doping Agency. It holds tribunals and is not an actual court of law. Armstrong signed up to accept USADA's jurisdiction in doping matters some years ago.

The Tour titles don't have to be awarded to anyone. What happens will be down to the ASO and they could just declare no winner for those years. (Strange how many believe that a squeaky-clean Armstrong kept beating all those nasty dopers year after year...)

I for one don't believe he was squeaky clean and I think a person would have to be quite naive to. However I do believe that when he won his titles most other top cyclists were dopers too and that levels the playing field somewhat.

I don't agree with how he handles himself and I do think was a powerful bully whose grasp is slipping but I do think he still made an incredible achievement if you believe they were on a level playing field.

fivegomadindorset Fri 24-Aug-12 20:50:25

USADA do not have the power to strip him of his titles but are asking the Cycling federation to do so. I still think something is very iffy about all of this. If you are clean you fight to the bitter end.

lljkk Fri 24-Aug-12 20:57:26

Does it come down to his word against the ten or so? Do numbers trump anything LA would have to say, so he thinks why bother?
I have this gut feeling that he was "dirty" early in his run of wins, but clean for later ones. That would be rather ironic.

merrymouse Sat 25-Aug-12 05:58:43

Even if he is innocent, he won the Tour during an era when, it seems, for the majority of riders you couldn't be a top professional and ride clean. With or without his official titles, he was taking part in something that became a farce.

I think there comes a point where, whether the allegations against Lance Armstrong can be proved or not, just admission by his team mates that there was routine doping in his team, and the number of other top riders who have been found to be doping taints his wins.

I think the race organisers also have to bear a large amount of responsibility for allowing the farce to continue.

Just hope another 'undetectable' drug doesn't come along any time soon.

Sparrowp Sat 25-Aug-12 15:28:31

13 years does sound a long time. Who is the USADA, anyone heard of them before?

NovackNGood Sat 25-Aug-12 17:06:43

If it looks like a duck walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

Animation Mon 27-Aug-12 07:25:34

When I read this story it said more to me about this USADA than the truth of the matter. Saying he must be guilty because he's not fighting back sounds like an immature bullying tactic.

Yes, what is he fighting? - a bunch of bulliies I think trying to push him around with their black and white thinking - like they're a law unto themselves. He does right to walk away.

He successfully overcame cancer, and I should imagine it gives him a perspective on life where he choses his own battles. And he'll have needed to take plenty of medication during that time. Was it good medication or bad medication I don't know, but this doesn't strike me as a black and white situation.

maillotjaune Mon 27-Aug-12 09:50:01

I have much admiration for Armstrong's actions to raise money for and support those with cancer.

But in cycling terms he was a bully. His former team mates would not have spoken earlier due to fear of his power. This is not a French conspiracy against an unpopular American.

I don't know if he doped, although I think it is very possible given his associations and consistent success on a dark era for cycling. And I don't buy this litigation fatigue - here us a man with money and connections who has fought hard to suppress any negative publicity, why give up? Something must have changed.

Allegedly the way he got round doping tests was to have an IV drip of saline after he'd taken the drugs so by the time he was tested the results would be diluted to normal levels. Don't have any knowlege of the drugs he was on or how they metabolise so this could be wrong.

Alos at the time the pressure on team mates to keep schtum for "the good of the team" was immense. Now they have no team loyalty they're all coming out of the woodwork to spill the beans & say what they've witnessed.

Whatever the truth it should have been dealt with at the time & put to one side to avoid the shadow over the sport.

nocake Mon 27-Aug-12 10:02:09

Animation, the only bully in this is Armstrong. USADA are simply doing their job, investigating drug use in athletics.

Hanleyhigh Mon 27-Aug-12 10:07:56

I am amazed at how pro-Armstrong this thread is! There has been plenty of evidence around for years at what a bully he is and how he suppressed all evidence against him using intimidation, the wider world just chose not to see it as we all wanted him to be what he said he was IMHO.

David Walsh has written about this for years and is well worth reading.

Animation Mon 27-Aug-12 10:10:06

Interesting that Armstrong is said to be the bully.

When I read this news item USADA come across as the bullies.

Wonder what's the truth?

Animation Mon 27-Aug-12 10:18:54

Thinking about it you could be right that Armstrong was the bully. The worst kind of bullies can turn it around and make themselves look like the victim - quite convincingly...and use their 'victimhood' like a weapon.

lljkk Mon 27-Aug-12 10:19:43

We still haven't heard the USADA evidence, is it all just hearsay & innuendo? I want a full presentation.

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 10:22:34

I'm currently reading about the Tour de France and Team Sky and it is amazing at how drugs riddled cycling was in the time that LA was riding. Pretty much everyone was taking drugs to some degree. There was a French rider who was the same size, weight, ability as LA who said there was no way LA could be clean and win. He was hounded out of the sport. LA was a well known bully with influence at senior levels. From what I've read he knew if the matter went to arbitration his guilt would be confirmed. Interestingly the burden of proof is reversed at the arbitration compared to court - LA presumed guilty and then having to prove his innocence.

I don't think this has come at a bad time for cycling at all. For years the sport has been plagued with allegations of drug taking and it is good to have it out in the open now. The USADA must be confident of their sources as there is nothing to stop LA taking libel action if what they publish is malicious and untrue.

noddyholder Mon 27-Aug-12 10:29:43

Saw him on oprah years ago terribly arrogant just couldn't take to him at all

BumgrapesofWrath Mon 27-Aug-12 10:31:07

Read the David Walsh article from The Sunday Times - eye-opening.

diddl Mon 27-Aug-12 11:19:13

I also think that USADA came across as the bullies.

It seemed as if they were saying-you´ve stopped fighting, therefore you are guilty, therefore we take your titles away & ban you.

Like lljkk, I´d be interested in the evidence.

How strange that he should have to prove his innocence at arbitration.

If the USADA want to take titles away, you´d think that they would have to prove his guilt.

How do you prove that you didn´t do something?

By not getting positive drugs tests...?

The UCI are the only ones who can strip him of his titles and they have said they won't do anything unless USADA present them with irrefutable evidence.

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 13:33:19

diddl the USADA are just stating the law. As I posted earlier, under the arbitration proceedings the burden of proof is reversed so LA is presumed guilty unless he can show he is innocent. He can prove he is innocent by discrediting the many witnesses and evidence the USADA apparently have.

The USADA are intending to publish their evidence. I assume LA thought they would not do so if he decided not to fight. Of course the laws of libel are open to him if he feels that what they do publish is factually incorrect and/or malicious. As you will have read he has been very quick in the past to commence legal action against those who have questioned his integrity.

Afaik the allegations are that he did in fact test positive for drugs but senior people arranged for those tests to show a non-positive reading or somehow hide the readings (the USADA will need to provide evidence of how this was done). As others have posted here, LA could not have done this without help at senior levels. It was a very high level and sophisticated fraud and I doubt the USADA would be so keen to publish if they were not absolutely convinced of their case. They stand to be totally discredited if their evidence doesn't measure up.

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 13:34:26

Forgot to add that the UCI have said they will consider stripping LA of his titles once they have reasoned award the USADA intend to publish.

MrsCampbellBlack Mon 27-Aug-12 13:42:16

Surely the problem is if you strip him of his titles then who becomes the tdf champion for those years? You'd have to go back to the bloke who came 25th or something to find someone who wasn't doping surely?

So it all just seems a little pointless now. Seems that all the cyclists were doing stuff then that was dubious.

Lance's statement was very clever - he didn't categorically say he didn't dope but that he played by the rules and never failed a test.

He had over 550 tests according to the french Dr who ran all the doping tests during those years and passed every one.

I suspect he did do something that was on the lines of legality but then it seems so did everyone else - so do they just write 10 years of cycling off as no-one was really clean?

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 14:01:34

I don't think they can award the titles to anyone else as it would be farcical and difficult to find someone else who was drug free.

He took over 500 tests and 'passed' every one, would be a better way of putting it. He 'passed' according to the published results but, as I understand it, the USADA have evidence that these test results were amended.

Christophe Bassons was clean and was hounded out of the sport when he spoke out.

PedallingSquares Mon 27-Aug-12 14:14:32

I think Lance Armstrong has played a bit of a blinder here. He has said he will no longer fight because he is sick of it but is still claiming to be innocent. USADA have no chance to produce their evidence/witnesses that may well have discredited Armstrong completely. 10 witnesses is a lot.

Armstrong loses the titles but not all his credibility as this was he/wasn't he doping will run on and on and there remains that element of doubt in many peoples minds. Personally I think that is the best Armstrong could salvage.

albertswearengen Mon 27-Aug-12 14:53:39

Not all cyclists were doping. Many were but not all. What about those cyclists who refused to dope and therefore could never compete on what was an uneven playing field. Their careers were curtailed or never materialised. Saying everyone was at it therefore Armstrong is somehow excused is just downwright wrong. It is important for them at least that Armstrong and others dopeurs are exposed.

There were also allegations that Armstrong was doping before he got cancer. Just because someone gets cancer and recovers does not make them a decent, honest, honourable person.

diddl Mon 27-Aug-12 16:20:52

"As I posted earlier, under the arbitration proceedings the burden of proof is reversed so LA is presumed guilty unless he can show he is innocent. "

Yes, you did, sorry.

Why is that, & what happens before it gets to arbitration?

Seems odd that with all his negative tests that LA can´t prove his innocence.

I suppose the emphasis is on him because of his titles-but why ignore others-because they´ll speak against him if they aren´t exposed?

But I do think that all involved should be exposed.

maillotjaune Mon 27-Aug-12 16:28:43

They don't have to award the TdF titles to anyone. It might be a useful reminder if history shows no winner, to a wonderful sport sadly tainted by doping.

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 16:40:17

Not sure as to why the bop is reversed. Apparently it is the same as the Court of Arbitration for Sport - which is widely used for a variety of different sports.

I imagine the USADA are keen to expose LA as the biggest fish and the one who has been most vocal in saying he has always tested clean. Lots of others have already been caught but not him. I also think it is because of how senior the corruption goes. Lots of other riders doped and got caught. LA allegedly doped and didn't get caught because of inside help. That makes it a whole different level of corruption.

WidowWadman Mon 27-Aug-12 20:01:10

By "not fighting anymore" he can continue his defence of "I never tested positive" (which is a lie) as "I've never been found guilty in a court".

Tosspot of the highest order.

Animation Mon 27-Aug-12 20:26:38

What did he test positive on?

The USADA still appear to be jumping the gun to say his titles are to be stripped, as if they have this automatic authority.

He says he's been hounded for 3 years by them and that it feels like a witch hunt, and he and his family have had enough. Maybe there's some truth in that?

I don't know - I'm keeping an open mind.

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 20:29:45

Didn't he test positive and have the results amended?

bisjolympics Mon 27-Aug-12 20:31:07

On one occasion he apparently tested positive for steriods and then got a doctor to pre-date some steriod cream for non-existent saddle sores.

lljkk Mon 27-Aug-12 21:19:47

Allegedly. It's all tittle tattle. I think. I'd like some kind of non-hearsay non-circumstantial evidence.

Armstrong threatened in ?2006 to come out of retirement and win another TdF if they kept hassling him. I found that pretty amusing. Then he actually came out of retirement & "only" came 3rd, anyway.

Chris Boardman was clean. Phil Liggett has said things like he'd bet his life on that. There are a few others like that from the worst doping era, including Hammond (hopefully).

Has anyone else read Paul Kimmage's book Rough Ride? Kimmage is just relentless in the anti-doping campaigns. Even Kimmage is willing to believe that some of the top 10 riders each year were riding clean. He would name names but for libel laws.

Hanleyhigh Mon 27-Aug-12 22:13:33

I'm sorry this is long but it's worth reading IMO.

Emma O’Reilly Responds to Lance Armstrong Story

The former Armstrong assistant addresses doping allegations in Bicycling magazine’s Lance Armstrong feature.

Dear Mr. Strickland,

After reading your article “Endgame,” (Bicycling, May 2011), which included a sidebar detailing 10 allegations against Lance Armstrong and your opinion of how each might be viewed by a jury, I felt compelled to reply. Allegation 6, labeled “The Saddle Sore,” involves a dispute over a prescription Armstrong produced in 1999 to excuse a positive result for corticosteroid use in Stage 1 of that year’s Tour de France. You note that I, a soigneur for Armstrong’s team at the time, told journalist David Walsh that the prescription was illegitimate because it had been created and backdated after the test result was revealed. Then, in the section of that allegation called “Our Take,” you say: “At this point it’s Armstrong’s word against O’Reilly’s. Unless other witnesses corroborate her story, Armstrong wins this one.”

Years ago I gave an interview to David Walsh, in which I told him the truth of what I had seen and experienced in my years in cycling. Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David. Unfortunately, I was somewhat naïve and thought that David’s book was about helping to cure cycling of its scourge of drugs. Since I gave the interview, I feel that nothing positive has come from it. All it has led to is pitching people against each other and basically forcing them to choose whose side they are on. The whole subject is much deeper than some spat in the playground. I spoke to David because I felt that by not talking I was a part of a problem that is actually bigger than Lance. The big problem is drugs in cycling.

However, for those in cycling, that idea is way too simple and too many people are making their living out of cycling and feel the need to protect that. When I spoke to David, Marco Pantani and Jose Maria Jimenez had just died. This is what the problem is: People are dying because of drugs in the sport. Because I was prepared to lift my head out of the trenches and say it as it was, I became fair game. This is disgraceful.

But having read your article, I have decided enough is enough. For you to say in relation to that allegation that Lance wins — without you verifying my side of story — is it because you feel Lance’s word is worth more than mine? Is it because the only people you spoke to are still involved with Lance and cycling? I am sure Lance has people to back up his side, but I never got the opportunity to put my side across.

Since I spoke to David Walsh, I have received so many subpoenas that the policewoman who brought them got friendly enough with my boyfriend that she would call before coming and he’d put the kettle on for her. If my word is so worthless, why did I go to France and testify to the French Drug Squad? I worked the ’98 Tour de France, and I know how scary these guys can be, yet I was prepared to go to France, to their territory. I went because I was telling the truth, and also because a certain Mr. Armstrong sued me for a million euros because of my interview with David. If my word is so worthless, Mr. Strickland, why did Lance feel the need to terrorize me for more than two years? Why did Lance feel the need to try and break me? Why did I have his solicitor in my house trying to get me to retract parts of my interview?

Why, if my word is so worthless, did SCA drag me into their case against Lance over their refusal to pay him a Tour-winning bonus because of drug allegations? I did not want to get involved in the SCA case, as that is about a business deal that went wrong. I spoke to David because I wanted to help clean up cycling. I now know how naïve (code for stupid) I was. If my word is so worthless, why did SCA go through a lot of hassle and expense to get me subpoenaed for their case? If my word is so worthless, why did Lance’s legal team feel the need to go to the High Court the morning of my testimony for the above case so they could sit in on it? They would have known that I was without my lawyer, another bullying tactic that I had become accustomed too. Unfortunately, it’s hard to effectively bully someone who is telling the truth.

I have been called all things under the sun since I spoke the truth—strange that, isn’t it? But now I am sick to death of journalists and people in the media using my facts to help whatever point they want to get across. They chase me like dogs in heat when they are trying to get their story, then drop me if they’ve got their facts or I won’t elaborate or embellish their story. I have had their legal people call me at all hours demanding information and to backup what I’ve said. So I generally get harassment on both sides all because I was stupid enough to speak the truth.

For the record, I might not have achieved anything like Lance has—who has? But I live a nice, quiet life running a small business, with my two dogs and my boyfriend. So Mr. Strickland I would like you and your ilk to know that I am sick to death of you making judgments of me and my word. You don’t know me, I have never met nor talked to you, you have never made an attempt to talk to me. Who are you to make out that my word is worthless? Perhaps you should talk to Lance. He didn’t seem to think it was so worthless when he got his legal team to go after me for a couple of years. I also find it interesting to see that you decide the allegation will be in favor of someone who used his privilege of oath to call me disgusting names he wouldn’t say without protection.

To finish up, I would like you to know that what Lance has done for cancer sufferers has been phenomenal, and I agree with you that whether he is judged guilty or not he will still be an inspiration and rightly so. I had a couple of my most enjoyable years working alongside him, and really enjoyed his company, no matter what has happened since.

Emma O’Reilly

WidowWadman Thu 30-Aug-12 19:20:32

Very long, but very interesting Amazing how he got away with it for so long

nocake Thu 11-Oct-12 07:49:23

Resurrecting this thread as USADA released it's report on Armstrong yesterday. It's 200 pages long but if you read it and can come away still believing that Lance is innocent or that it's a witch hunt then you're either stupid or the biggest conspiracy theorist on the planet.

CogitoErgoSometimes Thu 11-Oct-12 09:52:53

What happened to 'we believe you'? Don't we believe the team-mates that claim they were coerced into drug-taking?

GooseyLoosey Thu 11-Oct-12 10:03:31

I am sad about this. I have been a cycling fan for many years. I believe that Armstrong doped. I also believe that it is likely that many of the oher 5 times Tour de France winners doped - several have hinted at it. I believe that the majority of the peloton prior to about the last 5 years doped.

Riding a grand tour seems to me to be the most demanding professional sport on the planet. They cycle 100s of Km a day at incredibly high speeds often into head winds or up mountains. It is not surprising that a culture of performance enhancement deveolped.

Nothing is served in my view by raking over the coals of the drug use of yester-year. If Armstrong is stripped of the tour titles, itwould be hard to find a credible alternative to award them too. Drugged or not, he was the outstanding grand tour rider of his generation and I believe he was riding on a fairly level playing field. USADA's investigation has damaged and continues to damage a sport that has done more than almost any other to reform itself.

Enough is enough.

ladysoandso Thu 11-Oct-12 11:25:42

Goosey - good point, hadn't thought of it from that angle. If they were all on dope then he is the still the best of the dopers.

It's the denying now that will be his downfall. He would have had to have been superhuman to be the winner amongst all the drug takers. Are they going to take away the medals of all his team mates now as well?

NorthWhittering Thu 11-Oct-12 15:39:14

"If they were all on dope then he is the still the best of the dopers"

no he just had the most money to throw at the doping.

NorthWhittering Thu 11-Oct-12 15:51:35

"Are they going to take away the medals of all his team mates now as well?"

many of the witnesses have already had their results stripped from them becuase of their testimony. LA would actually have suffered a lighter ban if he had helped with the investigation and would have retained 3 of his tdf wins, because of the statute of limitations.

poozlepants Thu 11-Oct-12 18:08:25

I just read Tyler Hamilton's book and it is a really good read.
One of the points he makes and I have read in different articles is that doping doesn't effect everyone in the same way. Some riders saw huge performance enhances with EPO whilst others didn't. Riders with naturally high haemocrit levels didn't get the same boost as others did. Doping didn't level the playing field it just created a new one that Armstrong excelled in.
Some riders refused to dope and left the sport.
Some of the main allegations of USADA is that Armstrong insisted that riders on his team doped otherwise they would be dropped.

He should just give it up now-it's all a bit pathetic.

Hanleyhigh Thu 11-Oct-12 18:14:42

"If they were all on dope then he is the still the best of the dopers"

Completely disagree, as said up thread, lots of this depends on money, which doctors you could afford, the travelling round they had to pay for to get their injections.

It also disregards the people who were hounded out of the sport because they refused to dope and the way in which Armstrong bullied others into doping.

It continues to amaze me that he still has his defenders.

JoshLyman Fri 12-Oct-12 15:25:05

This is making me increasingly angry. He was doped up the eyeballs, which is bad enough, but it appears he also threw his weight about, threatened and intimidated people who dared speak out and used his money and influence to get his way. Despicable man.

PedallingSquares Fri 12-Oct-12 16:11:49

USADA's investigation has damaged and continues to damage a sport that has done more than almost any other to reform itself

shock

No, USADA's investigation has shown the world that cycling can and will find those who cheat and they will expose them, even if it takes time. This is exactly why the sport is now cleaner.

The amount of evidence against Armstrong is huge. I cannot believe anyone would suggest that the USADA should ignore that and brush it under the carpet because cycling has made a bit of an effort to clean itself up.

Armstrong continues to damage the sport by refusing to admit the truth.

poozlepants Fri 12-Oct-12 18:55:24

I can't believe Nike are standing by him- 'Lance has stated his innocence and has been unwavering on this position'. Well that's alright then his word against a 1000 page document produced by USADA with the testimony of 11 of his team mates. Unfuckingbelievable. I hope Nike have their Gerald Ratner moment.
Nike is the sportswear for cheats and bullies. Lovely.

There also seems a deafing silence all the way over in Switzerland as the UCI fail yet again to do anything.

PedallingSquares Wed 17-Oct-12 15:20:43

Delighted to see that Nike have now cut sponsorship to Lance.

I wonder how long he can continue to profess his innocent in the face of such evidence.

anonacfr Wed 17-Oct-12 19:09:00

Well he's now resigned from his own charity too so it looks like he can't hide from the truth for much longer.
What was hilarious is that his lawyer demanded that the 26 ex-colleagues, staff etc. who testified against him all take a lie detector test.
However when asked if Armstrong would do the same, he replied 'possibly, maybe sometime in the future, it might happen'.

Yeah, right.

WidowWadman Fri 18-Jan-13 08:55:45

What an absolute wanker he is.

mayorquimby Fri 18-Jan-13 09:29:49

An absolute tosser in a morally bankrupt sport
Last night was just a self-serving attempt at a pr resurrection and he was still trying to justify his doping

CaseyShraeger Fri 18-Jan-13 09:44:01

Having watched the interview, it soon became clear he isn't sorry about what he's did, he's only fucking sorry he was found out.

Wanker.

I've heard some people on the radio say, "he's admitted his mistakes, now it's time to leave him alone."

Leave him alone? Fuck that.

The guy has made millions of dollars by being a fraud, why the hell should he be left alone to live in comfort, when so many hard-working, decent and honest people are living on a pittance in America (and of course, all over the world)?

I hope his sponsors, and anyone else who gave him money on the back of his fake "success", drag him through the courts to get the money back.

Maryz Fri 18-Jan-13 10:29:38

I agree he isn't sorry he did it, he's sorry he was caught - like most cheats.

Of course he would keep fighting if he was innocent. No matter how many people stood up and spoke out against him, if he had done nothing wrong he would continue to say so, no matter what.

I believe the only reason he is "giving up the fight" is that he knows it is lost. He knows that somewhere there is evidence that is eventually going to come to light. And enough people knew for him to be no longer able to pay lawyers to shut them all up.

He has done an unforgivable thing, and should not just be "left alone". He has cheated and lied, but mostly he has let down so many young sports people.

ds2 wore a "live strong" bracelet for years. He cut it up last week.

He is 14 and a very good sportsman - but he feels he and other sports men and women have been let down by people who should have been their heroes, and by the authorities who turned a blind eye.

He doesn't cycle, but if this happens in cycling, it makes the cynical wonder whether it has also happened in other sports.

McKayz Fri 18-Jan-13 10:35:18

The man is a twat. We're a big cycling family and now I feel like I wasted so many days of my life watching that cheating arsehole.

A whole generation of children have been brought up to consider this guy a hero. He's despicable, and evidently not sorry at all.

We are going to watch a couple of stages of the TdF this summer, and DH did consider whether this would be tantamount to tacitly approving of doping. I hope it is cleaner now....I hope to God that Bradley is clean (I believe he is, but have been wrong before).

I think Lance should be presecuted for perjury and face the music generally. As happened to Jonathan Aitken in clightly different circumstances.

DH and I are really disappointed and disgusted with him. It also casts a shadow on cycling as a sport and if I had won the Tour, like Wiggo, or even participated, the hard non-performance-enhancing-drugs way then I would be really pissed off.

What a scumbag. It's incredible.

diddl Fri 18-Jan-13 10:45:58

Sad, isn´t it?

If he was so sorry I think he would have admitted it sooner.

All those who supported him-total slap in the face.

We bloody cheered him on at the Giro d'Italia in 2009 with DS1 who was nearly a year old then. I feel sick and let down.

What really made my blood boil, was hearing him say that he didn't feel bad at any point, when winning cheating.

I suppose though, if your morality level is such that you're prepared to go to such lengths to "win", you probably lack any notion of guilt too.

I really feel for his children, I really do, to have their image of their father destroyed in this way. I can only imagine how it must feel to find our your dad isn't the man you thought he was.

WidowWadman Fri 18-Jan-13 11:07:37

mayorquimby - I wouldn't call cycling a morally bankrupt sport - it has done a lot to clean up its act. At the time of LA's biggest successes, it probably was more so, and he's a major reason for that, even if he doesn't admit to that (yet)

You don't hear much about doping in football or tennis - is it because they don't dope, or is it because the testing is woeful?

The whole interview was self-serving shite. No real apology and utter disregard for the people he trampled over.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 18-Jan-13 11:12:42

i'll never understand why people cheered him, he was always a scumbag. even when we didn't know he was cheating, he was still unsportsmanly and arrogant and the way he concentrated so hard on the tour de france while skipping the other races in the season was always effectively 'cheating'.

PartTimeModel Fri 18-Jan-13 11:23:42

He used his reputation, boosted considerably by his 'victory' over cancer to back up his status and reputation, and to discredit anyone who tried to take him on. Plus he bullied anyone who tried to oppose him or who did not toe his line of lies. It's thoroughly despicable and disgusting behaviour.

He's only sorry he got caught. And now he dares to claim what he did was OK because 'everyone else was doing it' - what are you Lance? 4 years old?

Throughout his downfall, time and time again I've felt strong parallels between his behaviour and that of Jimmy Saville (and similar creeps). Using his fame and celebrity to cover up disgusting behaviour, and discredit anyone who dares to question his 'authority'. The sheer arrogance of their personalities!! The forcefulness against anyone who opposed or questioned them. He must be believed because he survived cancer/visited sick children/is famous/is a leader etc etc. Of course it's a different kind of harm, and hurt he caused, but he did harm people, he did hurt people, he did manipulate and control people and he used his celebrity & power as a forcefield of protection.

I'm amazed one body can contain the amount of arrogance that Armstrong (and Saville) must have and still function and be believed. Though of course those closes to them knew the truth - but the offenders were well protected by their strong and highly manipulated public persona. Even the press couldn't effectively break through and expose the truth (for so long).

It's also interesting that Lance chose the 'celebrity' confession with Oprah in an attempt, no doubt, to win sympathy and maximum coverage and perceived humility. And he did this over actually confessing and apologising to those closest to him, who supported him and believed him through thick and thin, and who will now be paying the personal price for their faith and belief in him.

Did he get paid by Oprah I wonder?

How can anyone believe a word this man says ever, when his whole career has been based on lies and intimidation. He lied re the drugs and I think he's lying when he says he's sorry.

Viviennemary Fri 18-Jan-13 11:29:33

I wonder how much he was paid for his appearance on the Oprah prgramme. this is what it's all about, money. He wants to build some sort of new career writing a book or in the media. And this is his first step. He shouldn't be getting encouragement. That's my opinion. He certainly didn't get any sympathy from me. I never gave him a thought before but now I simply think who wants to hear from this conniving self-confessed cheat.

Nancy66 Fri 18-Jan-13 11:33:09

He always came across as being a very unpleasant man - way before the cheating allegations really snow-balled. It seemed the fact the was a cancer patient gave him licence to be a cunt.

He always came across as very aggressive, rude and with a horrible attitude to women.

I've seen clips of the interview with Oprah and he still seems so reluctant to accept any blame or show any true contrition.

I get the distinct feeling that he did the interview on the advice/orders of his: lawyers, agents and PR people who advised that it was the first step on his road to redemption.

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 11:33:53

Didn't he call Emma O Reilly a drunk and a whore?
Under oath?
Because she had the guts to tell the truth?
I knew then that not only was he a cheat but he was a misogynist and a cunt to boot!

Nancy66 Fri 18-Jan-13 11:39:15

he's regularly called his female accusers things like

'mad bitches'

'stupid sluts'

VivaLeBeaver Fri 18-Jan-13 11:41:51

I do get that because everyone else was cheating/doping he felt he had to or he wouldn't have a hope in hell. I can kind of forgive that.

However I can't forgive the fact he seems to be such a nasty cunt.

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 11:44:55

Nancy -Yes he has called women those names.
Better than deny the truth, to go on the attack - but not what they say (how can he deny when women like Emma have been telling the truth about him for years) but attack them AS WOMEN.
So yes any woman who dares go up against him is a slut a whore a bitch.
Horrible hateful man.
I saw him cycle past in the last tour and I tried to shout Whore at him, but I was so nervous it barely came out as a whisper. With all the cheering and shouting he wouldn't have heard anyway but its been obvious as all hell for YEARS that hes the dopest of the dopers.

And to think that a few tears on Oprah might get him back into public favour is really sickening.
What about all the honest cyclists?
The whole sport is sick sick sick now.

WidowWadman Fri 18-Jan-13 11:47:08

"I do get that because everyone else was cheating/doping he felt he had to or he wouldn't have a hope in hell. I can kind of forgive that."

It would be potentially forgiveable if

a) he hadn't been so instrumental in ensuring that it was that way
b) he hadn't lied about it for so long
c) he wouldn't still be lying about a)

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 11:47:40

But everyone ISNT cheating.
If there are 2 out of ten even who are not, then those 2 have the odds against them. They are basically fucked.
If they actually want to weed out all the riders, doctors, high up officials who want this doping to continue, then the 2 honest ones will find themselves winning races and money and being rewarded for their honesty and this will encourage more to follow the straight path.
NOT everyone is doping.
Lance is the classic bully "But it wasn't me, it was everyone else"
Wah Wah Wah narcissist misogynist prick.

Apparently he wasn't paid.

This from the BBC website...

A spokeswoman for the Oprah show said that Armstrong had not been paid to appear and that Winfrey had been free to ask any question she wanted.

Dh too wore a LiveStrong band for years. It went in the bin when the USADA report came out. He was a figurehead and a hero to so many and that hurts. I remember using him to ds1 as an example of successfully overcoming the odds. sad

Armstrong does not seem to have considered all the people who felt the same way at all.

Zavi Fri 18-Jan-13 12:13:29

How awful for his kids to have to grow up with everybody knowing what a liar and a cheat their dad is. How mortifying for them!

I'm not impressed by his coming clean. He spent many years doping and denying it, he bullied his team mates into doping too, he even sued people who tried to expose his doping.

It's only now, with his back completely against the wall, that he is "coming clean".

He has zero credibility left.

I hope they will be able to award his 7 TdF titles to someone else. Someone who deserves it/them.

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 12:24:17

He ruined the reputations and livlihoods of countless people and his defence is it didn't feel like cheating?
Wow.
His children wont mind, they will have been brought up to hero worship their dad and will be incapable of questioning him.
Plus they are very rich and will have a life of luxury surrounded by Yes men and people who continue to worship Lance.
They'll be fine.

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 12:39:47

He lied, cheated, became famous and made a fortune of it.

So now, even if he confesses, does free interviews and gets sued he STILL has some sort of career and a way of making money.

He owns a chain of very nice bike shops - all funded from his winnings of course - and will have that to fall back on. If he had been smart, he'll have put ownership of something in his wife's name too.

So he'll always be in a better position than any of the non-cheats he competed against, even after finding out.

He's ruins the dreams of people in the sport and fans who supported him. And STILL doesn't feel guilty about it as he's justified it all in his head.

It wasn't an apology. That takes remorse. He's only doing it cos he got caught.

In my book that just makes him a Grade A Cunt.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 18-Jan-13 12:45:30

he was on the best of the best cocktails of drugs, he had team-mates who would have beaten him if they too had been on the best stuff. so no, he wasn't interested in a level playing field. he's just a straight-up cheat.

rubyrubyruby Fri 18-Jan-13 12:59:18

I have always disliked him
Both DH and I have always said he is a drugs cheat.

I still read his 'it's not about the bike' book and will continue to wear my Livestrong band and support his charity.

No change here.

ivykaty44 Fri 18-Jan-13 13:12:05

There is an interesting article/interview with Nicole yesterday. Can't find her interview from yesterday with all the publicity that the idiot twat has now got this one has been written today

It does make me sick to think he has lied, cheated and is now going to make money from fraud and cheating.

A prison sentence would be more apt and then a ban on media coverage on him would be far more fitting angry

did he lie on oath which would be contempt of court?

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 13:17:13

Holy Hell. Just reading an article on this, which has quotes from the interview:

uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/cycling-wetzel-thankful-never-met-jerk-090941739.html

He will not get the same treatment as he dished out. He can't even remember who he sued as he sued so many!

EldritchCleavage Fri 18-Jan-13 13:17:24

The cheating isn't actually the worst of it.

The bullying-no, the oppression of others in this sport, the gaslighting and vindictiveness, the active promotion of a whole industry of cheating and attempts to compromise the ruling body and anti-doping structure, that's the worst of it.

And Oprah was poor. I'd like to see Paxman get a go at Armstrong.

I had no idea he was like that towards women. Not nice.

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 13:28:09

And Oprah is know for her attitude that everyone deserves a second chance.
Admit what you've done and we will love you again.
She is not known for her indepth knowledge of cycling or her hard hitting interviews.
Shes been played by him and his immense legal team.
He is disgusting.

I fully understand why the French never liked him now. I always assumed it was just the being American that they didn't like, but I was wrong. They knew. Thinking about it, like the last Tour, for example, Thomas Voeckler (whom I really like) would win a very difficult stage and you would see it hurting him as he was riding and he was giving everything, but the next day, he would (understandably) be at the back of the pelaton and knackered. Lance would ride the same every day.

Maryz Fri 18-Jan-13 14:06:03

Looking at some of the transcripts I can see why he chose to go on Oprah for his "confession" and why he didn't charge her (if that is true hmm).

This is a massive publicity exercise - no hard-hitting questions, no recriminations, an opportunity for him to go "poor me, I just got innocently caught up in the whole business, please forgive me for making mistakes".

Fucker.

McKayz Fri 18-Jan-13 14:24:56

Little, my Dad always said the French never liked him because he wasn't French.

I was 13 when he won his first Tour, I used to rush back from school, to watch it. Afternoons I could have been out with my mates, reading a book etc.

CaseyShraeger Fri 18-Jan-13 14:36:24

According to Forbes he could potentially be in for some pretty massive financial penalties.

Spot on EldritchCleavage

I have done a lot of reading over the last few months, David Millar, Brad and Tyler (can you see what people got us for Christmas?!) and am about to embark on the Paul Kimmage book.

What makes Lance different is the immense reach & influence he had into the sport - that he could evade his own negative tests but make sure that others got tested. The UCI are screwed by implication. There is every danger that cycling could lose its Olympic status as result of the UCI's feeble actions - and Lance's revelations are making that all the more likely. As the parent of a keen female cyclist, wife of a passionate cyclist and a fan of the sport myself, I am furious that this despicable individual (and others liek him) may yet bring down a sport in which so many honest cyclists have worked and suffered - only to be ytterly derailed. Nicole's retirement statement was heart-rending.

Add to that, a truly psychopathic mindset about his "enemies", he must have been (and probaly still is) terrifying to those he decided had crossed him.

He is a deeply unpleasant man and I can't find enough words to describe the depths of my distaste for him.

All of this wailing is a carefully orchestrated PR campaign to mitigate his potential losses from the barrage of lawsuits heading his way.

pants - I thought I'd cleaned up all of the typos in that post and yet tis still riddled.

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 14:53:45

I've just finished the Paul Kimmage book and its great (in a frustrating way obviously)

PartTimeModel Fri 18-Jan-13 15:20:14

"*The bullying-no, the oppression of others in this sport, the gaslighting and vindictiveness, the active promotion of a whole industry of cheating and attempts to compromise the ruling body and anti-doping structure, that's the worst of it."*

^ above sums it up really well.

Plus the absolute arrogance on a breathtaking scale to SUE people and WIN - people who called him out, confronted him, tried to expose the truth. He lost count of the number of people he sued, many of them former 'friends'. It's astonishing.

Nancy66 Fri 18-Jan-13 15:27:48

He'll probably end up doing some two man show with Tiger Woods

PartTimeModel Fri 18-Jan-13 15:29:41

In the future, whenever I can't believe someone could be quite as arrogant as they seem, I will think of LA and know it can be so.

Naiivegenius Fri 18-Jan-13 15:34:18

Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh, Christophe Bassons, Floyd Landis, Travis Tygart, Pierre Ballester, Betsy Andreu, Frankie Andreu, Nicole Cooke

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 15:36:16

I hope he ends up doing a decent length jail sentence. What have we got? Fraud, purgery? harassment and intimation, defamation of character?

Sadly I do not think he will do any.

Naiivegenius Fri 18-Jan-13 15:41:00

Happily, I think he will.

EldritchCleavage Fri 18-Jan-13 15:45:47

Reserve your seats now for the legal battle with the Sunday Times, who are suing to get back the costs and damages they paid out to him in his libel action here. Can't wait to hear the judge get the boot in (they have less time for liars, however repentant, than Oprah does).

PartTimeModel Fri 18-Jan-13 15:49:32

<<<gets out knitting>>>

Naiivegenius Fri 18-Jan-13 15:49:48

We are all part of a culture that has put this man on a pedestal. Why? He's just a bloke who "rides a bike really quickly".

HeyHoHereWeGo Fri 18-Jan-13 16:07:30

I have driven the route and my car strugled to get up the hills of the tour. These men are animals, superhuman really. For any of them to do it is enough for me. I would still be into the sport if they were an hour or two slower, I really would. Its not necessary to dope. He doped because he wanted to win. Everyone has known it. What he has claimed to have done he could not have done. Its been obvious for years.

lljkk Fri 18-Jan-13 16:17:53

I don't understand this vilification & vitriole. He was an abandoned, bullied and abused child himself and learnt a dog eat dog ethos from early childhood. Then the cancer struck and nothing could have been more unfair than that. Doping culture was rampant in pro-cycling, Kimmage himself* struggled badly with being tempted by it himself. That morality became Armstrong's norm. Armstrong needs to apologise personally to the people he harmed and to cycling fans in general, but what he says publicly means nothing to most of us.

This shouldn't be news because it doesn't mean anything but gossip. Armstrong is old news and no news. The only thing he can salvage is to try to keep the good name of Livestrong.

( *Kimmage is convinced that doping is still rampant in pro-cycling and always will be ).

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 16:28:04

Poor little Lance had cancer and a bad childhood. Therefore it was perfectly acceptable for him to behave in this way; to ruin lives, lie, cheat and otherwise deceive others, very often those who were friends.

I think I seen this time of excuse used to justify other types of abusive behaviour...

Its still total shit however you use this argument.

McKayz Fri 18-Jan-13 16:29:49

Its bullshit. Lance Armstrong is not the only person to have a bad childhood or have cancer. I'd say 99% of people don't then go on to decieve the whole world.

lljkk Fri 18-Jan-13 16:41:02

I wasn't making excuses. But I can't rise to hating him and demanding he go to jail or be tarred and feathered, either. Of course we're all products of our environment (which included a norm of cheating in his, and treating other people badly). The level of anger in this thread surprises me because we've know for ages what he did, there were no worse crimes revealed in these interviews. It's no surprise that he's struggling with knowing how to confess and apologise, too.

Has all this anger been out there lurking and you all just wanted a handy target?

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 16:47:22

He should face justice; there is a strong case to answer for serving time in jail.

I actually don't think thats lynching him or even hating him.

I also don't think apologising in the manner he has to some of his victims really does him any credit as again I don't think its about showing remorse, just and trying to gain sympathy so he gets specialist treatment and somehow gets out of being held fully responsible and accountable for the actions he's taken.

Nancy66 Fri 18-Jan-13 16:49:49

...did he have a terrible childhood? Not convinced.

Having parents who divorce doesn't mean that any child becomes a life-long liar and cheat...otherwise half the world would be.

Think you're clutching at straws there lljkk

lljkk Fri 18-Jan-13 16:56:57

Seems to me like that whole process is in hand, of making him accountable in every way possible. It's just not a very fast process.

I still respect Armstrong but I wonder why I never liked him, such a hard-man and he made pro-cycling very boring to be a fan of. They say Indurain was very similar (bullying and so on); Miguel is probably shaking in relief that he's not the one who got found out.

I don't see any vitriol, just a deep contempt for his appalling behaviour - he is a cheat, a liar and a bully on a massive scale. no, it hasn't been known for years - anyone who suggested it has been hounded mercilessly by Armstrong and his legal team.

Lljkk, I think it's odd that you dismiss people who don't like that.

goldiehorn Fri 18-Jan-13 16:58:59

They cant really award his 7 tour de france wins to anyone else can they because everyone was doping at the time werent they?

It really was rife in the sport. Which is why people like Bradley Wiggins piss me off when they get oh so outraged and start publically calling people cunts and wankers for daring to suggest that team sky may have been taking drugs. Yes I can understand that if he really has not been taking drugs (and I dont think he has), then you would be cross that people were questioning your own hard work. But it is hardly a massive leap to wonder if it still goes on, and I thought that his little rant about that was uncalled for. Bradley Wiggins acheivements have been amazing this year, but he comes across as a bit of an arse.

Lance Armstrong however, does qualify as a massive cunt, for many many reasons!

lljkk Fri 18-Jan-13 17:01:09

Maybe his first autobiography is a pack of lies, too, but he seems to describe a great many physical beatings in it from his step-dad (plus emotional abuse). His mum worked all hours (she was only 17 when he was born, I think). Bio dad abandoned him, bullied and ostracized by kids at school for long periods, it was a rotten childhood by any standards.

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 17:04:23

So he understood all that. And well enough to write about it in his autobiography.

And then inflicted it on others.

I tend to veer on the side of thinking that actually makes it even worse not better!

goldiehorn Fri 18-Jan-13 17:05:23

Given the way he has deceived so many people on such a massive scale over the last 20 years, it wouldnt surprise me if he had been economical with the truth in his own autobiography.

mayorquimby Fri 18-Jan-13 17:26:26

Using his cancer as a shield from criticism and as a means to attack others is also pretty reprehensible

squoosh Fri 18-Jan-13 17:29:00

Grandiose Sense of Self
Pathological Lying
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Lack of Empathy
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

Just some of the indicators of a sociopathic personality which I believe Armstrong has.

OurPlanetNeptune Fri 18-Jan-13 17:38:17

Just some of the indicators of a sociopathic personality which I believe Armstrong has.

Yes, I agree. A significant number of people have suggested he may well be. My husband said as much 2 years ago. He is a bully and has shown no real contrition about cheating and the way he victimised the people who spoke out against him. He deserves to be shamed.

Naiivegenius Fri 18-Jan-13 17:47:50

Think its time they took down the TDF yellow t-shirts in his shop! This guy just doesn't get it.....

44SoStartingOver Fri 18-Jan-13 17:57:15

Have to say I felt outrage on his behalf when sponsors started to withdraw support when he was ill.

I thought he was admirable even if not likeable.

Now, it is quite clear what a total knob he is.

Damage to the sport, damage to others careers and reputation, even damage to the charity he set up.

All round total cock.

I hope financial reparations are required, damages, return of all awards and some kind of punishment.

What a git.

squoosh Fri 18-Jan-13 17:57:22

Does the Livestrong charity put money into cancer research or is it just cancer 'awareness'?

mayorquimby Fri 18-Jan-13 18:07:54

awareness afaik

44SoStartingOver Fri 18-Jan-13 18:11:23

Awareness?

How does that work? Living well and looking for symptoms?

Off track I know

WidowWadman Fri 18-Jan-13 18:37:02

Livestrong mostly puts money in the awareness of one cancer survivors, called Lance Armstrong. It's also used to pay for legal bills and travel costs of cancer survivors called Lance Armstrong.

It only has ever put precious little money towards research.

anonacfr Fri 18-Jan-13 18:58:59

http://reader.roopstigo.com/view/roopster/story/618/#/chapter/2/

anonacfr Fri 18-Jan-13 18:59:31
coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 19:03:49

That article is appalling anonacfr.

It really is questionable how long Livestrong really can survive this, if at all.

AnyaKnowIt Fri 18-Jan-13 20:05:22

is anyone else watching?

expatinscotland Fri 18-Jan-13 20:05:46

'I don't understand this vilification & vitriole. He was an abandoned, bullied and abused child himself and learnt a dog eat dog ethos from early childhood.'

No, he wasn't!

He's a sociopath who ruined peoples' lives and careers to cover up his lies and is only sorry because he got caught. He doesn't even remember all the people whose lives he wrecked and made a misery.

expatinscotland Fri 18-Jan-13 20:08:31

What channel?

McKayz Fri 18-Jan-13 20:09:47

It is on the Discovery Channel.

I recorded it when it was on overnight. He doesn't come across as sorry at all. The 2nd part is on overnight and tomorrow.

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 20:18:19

Dammit. I watched the whole thing on youtube earlier but its been removed.

I would imagine part 2 will be up online for a while tomorrow before the lawyers get out of bed it gets pulled.

AnyaKnowIt Fri 18-Jan-13 20:21:16

i get the feeling he has lied that much he doesn't know whats true anymore

expatinscotland Fri 18-Jan-13 20:24:17

I'm going to YouTube, as don't have Sky so no Discovery.

squoosh Fri 18-Jan-13 20:24:31

If it wasn't for journalists such as Paul Kimmage none of this would ever have come to light. Not that the sport will be thanking him anytime soon! He was bullied by Armstrong, vilified by those at the highest levels in cycling and I believe he even lost his job at the Sunday Times as a result of his crusade.

If I was him I'd be thinking 'fuck you Armstrong, the truth won in the end'.

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 20:25:53

Actually it is still on youtube in 4 parts. If you search:
oprah and lance armstrong the worldwide exclusive - part 1
oprah and lance armstrong the worldwide exclusive - part 2
oprah and lance armstrong the worldwide exclusive - part 3
oprah and lance armstrong the worldwide exclusive - part 4

You should come up with it.

The links below seem to be working as the moment, but for how long I don't know.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

coldinthesun Fri 18-Jan-13 20:26:52

But I don't know if they fit together perfectly - different users. None seem to have all the parts up as far as I can find.

difficultpickle Fri 18-Jan-13 20:51:57

Armstrong sued the Sunday Times and got £1m in damages for Kimmage's article, which the ST is now suing him (LA) to recover.

squoosh Fri 18-Jan-13 20:57:04

Must be quite irritating to have to re-sue for something that they dishonestly sued you for.

AnyaKnowIt Fri 18-Jan-13 21:50:06

He still can't tell the truth can he. He said that he has never failed a test yet got a backdated prescription to cover up the fact that he did fail.

I see a new career in politics hmm

vivizone Fri 18-Jan-13 22:07:33

I can think of worse people to hate. In fact I have just decided I like him.

It is possible to hate several people simultaneously.

I hate him despite only learning about him recently. blush

AnyaKnowIt Fri 18-Jan-13 22:15:07

Before that interview, I had no option on him whatsoever.

After, I think he is a lying cunt

iclaudius Fri 18-Jan-13 22:26:27

ditto

opinion prior to interview - ambivalent
post interview - loathsome self serving human

squoosh Fri 18-Jan-13 22:26:28

I'm talented, I'm capable of simultaneously despising more than one lying sociopath.

MysteriousHamster Fri 18-Jan-13 22:55:33

It's not vitriolic to say out loud what we think of him now he's finally come out with (a version of) the truth.

He's a grade a bastard. He has thought nothing of building an empire on his lies, ruining people's lives, their names, suing people left, right and centre, pressuring team members to dope, getting other people investigated, earning millions on the back of these lies.

So what if he had a tough upbringing? Even if you think it contributed it excuses nothing. He's a sociopathic bully. He's only admitting this much because he wants a chance to race again and maybe if he says 2005 was the last time he'll be able to do it soon.

His bloodwork suggests he was doping in 2009, so chances are he's STILL lying.

I really hope the current cycling stars are clean but it's so hard to know. Wiggins used to speak out against dopers, now he speaks out against those investigating dopers. I don't like the change.

ElfSweetPea Sat 19-Jan-13 00:02:22

Totally agree MysteriousHamster. Not sure about the Bradley Wiggens thought though.

There was no sign of remorse in the first part of the interview, no signs on his face of deep regret, no body language showing he is really sorry. I have a feeling he was forced into doing the interview, maybe something was about to come out, he felt he had to get in first.

Second part of the interview airs tonight in the US, should be interesting.
The next part of this saga is did his ex Sheryl Crow know...

CaseyShraeger Sat 19-Jan-13 00:52:13

Can you give examples of that, MysteriousHamster (other than his not being keen on Kimmage himself)? I've seen plently of anti-doping statements from Wiggins recently.

squoosh Sat 19-Jan-13 01:27:19

I think it was very odd that Wiggins said that he would not be watching the Armstrong interview.

Seriously? You have no interest in seeing Armstrong's explanations? This is the biggest scandal ever to have hit cycling.

There is clearly a lot of anger towards Kimmage and the other journalists who pursued the doping issue from the cycling hierarchy. As Kimmage tweeted 'ignore the message, attack the messenger'

expatinscotland Sat 19-Jan-13 08:53:30

He thinks he should be allowed to compete again.

here

AnyaKnowIt Sat 19-Jan-13 09:06:32

so this is all for his own benefit then hmm

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:27:13

If what he says about his childhood is true I'm hardly surprised at his behaviour - it doesn't sound like anyone stepped in early enough to mitigate the monster that was being created. I googled sociopathic personality with childhood abuse and this was the first article I came across - I doubt the irony of the source of the article will be lost on anyone!

http://www.livestrong.com/article/93343-childhood-signs-sociopath/

Sorry, have no idea how to create clickable links.

CoteDAzur Sat 19-Jan-13 09:29:46

Links
www.mumsnet.com gives www.mumsnet.com
Mumsnet gives Mumsnet
You can also insert a link without any formatting, e.g. http://www.mumsnet.com/
Ticking "Convert links automatically" will turn any links that look like http://www.mumsnet.com/ into http://www.mumsnet.com/

From right under the box you used to write your post.

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:31:49

nd another article that goes into more detail - again from the same source (perhaps Lance recognised himself? Even more reason to vehemently cover up his behaviour at all costs)

http://www.livestrong.com/article/99456-causes-sociopathic-behavior/

CoteDAzur Sat 19-Jan-13 09:35:56

The childhood stuff he now tells is him fabricating an excuse for his behavior. And he is only making that effort because he is now in trouble, not because he regrets that behavior.

I think he covered up his behaviour because it was illegal in the sport and he just wanted to win.

It's interesting that he said that his worst day was when Nike pulled out. Was that when he began to realise he wasn't going to win this one I wonder?

CoteDAzur Sat 19-Jan-13 09:39:39

"Sociopath" covers conditions like psychopathy and antisocial behavior disorder.

I think Lance Armstrong is hoping that people will think he is antisocial, whereas he is more probably a true psychopath.

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:42:14

Cote, I'm not suggesting that that he regrets his behaviour in any way shape or form - if he is on the sociopathic spectrum he's incapable of regret (except in the sense that he could regret purely from a personal gain perspective) Regret that he's damaged/hurt/ruined other people? If he's what people have suggested - he's completely incapable of putting himself in others' shoes and feeling empathy for what he put them through. He couldn't care less that he's potentially ruined the sport - except from the POV that if the sport is ruined he won't get to compete and win in it. Me me me.

Nancy66 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:43:33

I don't believe he had a particularly horrible childhood. His family relocated and his parents got divorced - it's hardly Angela's Ash's.

I saw pictures of him on something as a teenager and it's obvious he's had a nose job. Bizarrely I think that says a lot about the man and his narcissm

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:44:18

Thanks for the tip Cote - I completely missed the instructions beneath the box.

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:49:25

Cote, I doubt he'd have even given who he is a second thought (my comment on him possibly recognising himself was just me being silly) - people like that don't question themselves, don't second guess themselves - in their eyes they're perfect, everyone else is wrong and woe betide anyone who dares question their POV/opinion/authority etc. I only saw a few seconds of the Oprah interview yesterday and his body language and facial expressions and words made me feel physically sick - there wasn't a moment in that small excerpt that I saw that he was genuine. This is all again for his own personal gain.

CoteDAzur Sat 19-Jan-13 09:50:53

Happy to help smile I wasn't saying you are wrong, btw. Just that it feels to me that LA hopes to damage control through (1) "Feel sorry for me - I had such a bad childhood" and (2) "I'm just a bit antisocial".

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 09:52:43

I agree with you - he completely hopes that - they can turn on the charm oh so very well when it's for their personal gain while not meaning one single bit of what they're saying. Manipulative bastard.

noddyholder Sat 19-Jan-13 09:53:27

Typical narcissist will use anything to garner sympathy and get himself out of trouble

edam Sat 19-Jan-13 10:29:10

Plenty of people really do have horrible childhoods and loads of people have testicular cancer, doesn't turn them into monsters (or celebrities) or make them go around destroying other people's lives.

Obviously testicular cancer is Not Fun but if you are going to get cancer, it's the least-worst - treatable with excellent prospects of a full recovery. It's hardly time to get the violins out. I have sympathy for anyone with testicular cancer but LA acted as though it was the most terrible thing that could ever happen which suggests a lack of awareness of severe, hopeless suffering of e.g. Huntingdon's or dementia or lung or pancreatic cancer or loads of other conditions.

WidowWadman Sat 19-Jan-13 10:34:30

Also, he was a cheater and a liar way before he had the cancer. So he can't really use it as an excuse

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 10:47:16

Edam you're right.....also plenty of people have awful traumatic experiences later in life and some cope better with it than others. My point was that a bad childhood is a risk factor for producing a child who will have these tendencies - so no, I'm not surprised. Is this an excuse for his behaviour? Most certainly not - it's a big fat warning sign to anyone who is in the position of allowing him to get away with this and/or let him race again that he is what he is and he will shit all over people again in spite of the crocodile tears and the fake apologies and fake remorse. He will not change.

coldinthesun Sat 19-Jan-13 10:55:07

Heard the latest?

He calls his life ban - 'a death penalty'.

I shall get my candle out and pray for you then you tosser.

AbsintheMinded Sat 19-Jan-13 11:01:02

From what I've read, I can't sympathise at all with him and think an absolute ban from cycling is fairer for the sport and other cyclists.

The interview sounded like a PR stunt and spun in the most favourable way for him. His tweet that he regrets now was probably more truthful.

Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (with or without steroid help).

coldinthesun Sat 19-Jan-13 11:07:18

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21072708
BBC summary transcript of part two

Extracts that are revealing:

Oprah: How do you see yourself?

Armstrong: This is heavy. This is messy. I'm doing therapy. I'm the type of person who can't do this sporadically. This is going to be a long process.

Oprah: Is there real remorse? Or is there a sense of 'I'm sorry I got caught'?

Armstrong: I'm only starting. Do I have remorse? Absolutely. Will it grow? Absolutely. I'm paying the price but I deserve it.

Oprah: When something like this happens do you think it will bring a change in you?

Armstrong: I've got work to do. There's not going to be a tectonic shift.

Oprah: Are there people who knew about this that wanted you to stop?

Armstrong: Of course.

Armstrong talks about his ex-wife Kristin Richard

Oprah: Are you at a space not apologising but knowing that you have shattered people's lives?

Armstrong: Yes. Yes. Yes. I don't need to be back in that place when I can slip like that. If I had one of my kids act like that (reflecting on archive video shown of him) I'd be apoplectic.

Oprah: Are you a better human being because of what has happened?

Armstrong: Without a doubt. This has happened twice. When I was diagnosed. I was smarter, but then I lost my way. I can't lose my way again. Only I can control that.

coldinthesun Sat 19-Jan-13 11:07:41
coldinthesun Sat 19-Jan-13 11:08:34

Actually this one is better

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21087586

TheFallenNinja Sat 19-Jan-13 11:15:53

The thing is, they demanded he was banned, he got banned, they demanded he apologised, he apologised, they demanded he confessed, he confessed. He is doing everything that is bring demanded of him but where does it stop.

They're still not happy. They want him to go to prison now and I suppose he might but what else do they want?

In perspective, he cheated on a bike ride, let's not get too carried away.

coldinthesun Sat 19-Jan-13 11:24:06

He cheated on a bike ride, let's not get too carried away

Not I'll forget the bit where he lied in court and defamed, sued and ruined peoples careers and reputations for telling the truth.

You know, criminal behaviour.

Amongst other issues.

edam Sat 19-Jan-13 11:25:58

What about all the other cyclists whose careers he destroyed? What about the millions of ill-gotten gains? What about the people telling the truth that he hunted down in the courts and destroyed?

AbsintheMinded Sat 19-Jan-13 11:50:57

If only it were only a bike race. quote again from the interview.

~~ Losing sponsors was financially devastating, he said. "I've lost all future income. You could look at that day and a half when people (sponsors) left. That was a $75m day. Gone. Gone. And probably never coming back."

I wonder if he needs a meal planner now? Hardly...

HeyHoHereWeGo Sat 19-Jan-13 11:53:24

He ruined a whole sport and now he wants to move on to the next one?
Convenient that he denies doping during recent rides for which he could be prosecuted.
He only admitted to those rides outside of the statute of limitations.
Scum bag.

difficultpickle Sat 19-Jan-13 11:55:46

Second part of the interview shows his reasons for doing the interview in the first place - money. He has lost his income and wants to get it back. He is an utterly ruthless and nasty piece of work. Hopefully he will never be allowed to compete in anything ever again. He destroyed the lives and careers of several people.

difficultpickle Sat 19-Jan-13 11:57:50

There is absolutely no way he rode clean during his come back. Why would he even try when he had got away with it for so many years? I hope that the officials that were complicit in enabling him to pass all the drug tests he took now come forward. They won't and Armstrong won't name them because he will be prosecuted if he did.

McKayz Sat 19-Jan-13 11:57:57

Only a bike race. Ha!! Try telling that to the hundreds of men and women who work really hard training and racing without taking drugs who have to watch their sport ruined.

My Dad races in a cycling club. He had druggie yelled at him 5 times in 1 10 mile race a few weeks ago.

Sponsors are pulling out of cycling because Lance Armstrong is a twat. So other people have to suffer.

HighJinx Sat 19-Jan-13 12:52:42

Lance Armstrong sounds like he baddie at the end of a Scooby Doo cartoon. "And I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids"

He is only sorry that he didn't get away with it. Perhaps given how rife drug use was in cycling during his career his feelings on that are understandable though he was still very wrong to cheat.

But Lance Armstrong protested his innocent too much and for too long. He made some terrible comments and untrue accusations in response to his accusers, he sued for libel and therefore committed fraud, the list goes on.

I genuinely hope that his lifetime ban does stand. I hope that he is sued by many people for many millions. Because he did not simply dope like others who have received a 2 year ban have done.

He was given ample opportunity to "come clean" but he chose to instead to attempt to discredit others. But finally in the face of incredible evidence against him he has confessed (to some things at least). And so here he is, like the convicted man trying to do a deal after the trial. It's too late. Lance Armstrong thought he could win this and he lost.

expatinscotland Sat 19-Jan-13 12:55:56

'They're still not happy. They want him to go to prison now and I suppose he might but what else do they want?

In perspective, he cheated on a bike ride, let's not get too carried away.'

Nah, a little lying in court, bringing law suits against people who were telling the truth, defaming their characters, ruining their careers, cheating others out their wins and sponsorship monies/income, it's all just water under the bridge. hmm

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Sat 19-Jan-13 13:00:09

"The thing is, they demanded he was banned, he got banned, they demanded he apologised, he apologised, they demanded he confessed, he confessed. He is doing everything that is bring demanded of him but where does it stop."

who is the 'they' in this sentence? i wouldn't presume to speak for the people whose careers he ruined. if 'they' want him to go to prison, fair enough. he has behaved in a criminal manner.

difficultpickle Sat 19-Jan-13 13:09:18

But he hasn't apologised, has he? He has only apologised for getting caught. There is no remorse, there is no contrition, there is no apology to those whose lives he destroyed, there is no offer to make amends. Nothing.

noddyholder Sat 19-Jan-13 13:13:43

He said he wished he hadn't come back as then he would have been home and dry. He only regrets getting caught!

LeBFG Sat 19-Jan-13 15:05:23

Funny thing is, when all the French were saying cheat and druggy, we were all believing it. Some of the things he did in the Tour were just incredible - really, not credible. We all wanted to believe this cancer-recoverer could do super human things.

Looking back, I feel silly to have believed it was possible. Are we not also a part in the puzzle as to how he could go on so long and never get caught? He was tested over 500 times and never got a positive. How is this possible when even he says he was cheating for practically the whole period?

mummytime Sat 19-Jan-13 15:30:35

If you want to know how Lance managed not to get caught then you just have to read David Millar's book, testing has got much better (at least in cycling).

The harm he has done was also shown in Nicola Cooke's retirement speech.

IreneR Sat 19-Jan-13 15:59:26

I've been dismayed by the amount of support for him here in the US. So many people willing to shrug off LA's actions for a host of feeble reasons. He seems arrogant and awful to me. I'm all for forgiveness in cases of just about anything, but now I just want him to Go Away.

difficultpickle Sat 19-Jan-13 19:10:12

He got a pretty sympathetic hearing on Oprah so hardly surprising that he has a lot of support in the US. I wonder how many of his supporters actually know the full objective story rather than the lies LA has told?

Thanks for that link Mummy. That statement made me very sad. I loved cycling as a child and was told by parents and teachers that girls don't cycle in the Tour. To think where we are now and nothing has changed that much for female cyclists and the damage LA has done. He seemed so matter of fact in that interview, but IMO, not sorry.

TheDailyWail Sat 19-Jan-13 22:30:00

He wants to compete again. I think they should let him, then when results are posted he is not mentioned. If he wins, he should be overlooked. When he demands a medal like the rules state, they say "Lance, the rules are for those who respect them, medals are for those who use sheer hard graft and training to get them there. You don't deserve a reward and in our minds you will remain a non-competitor for ever more"

ColinFirthsGirth Sat 19-Jan-13 23:58:41

There is a wealth of evidence over the years to suggest that Lance Armstrong did indeed use blood doping and EPO etc. This is nothing new, he has been very cunning and has known how to avoid drug tests etc and knew exactly how to play the game. The British riders on the other hand were and are largely clean including Bradley Wiggins - it has not been part of the culture of British cycling to blood dope and take drugs.

Incidentally there has also been suspicion about his charity too - apparently the charity spends 60% of their money on "admin costs" ummmm corrupt anyone?

He is a lying cheat

Salbertina Sun 20-Jan-13 06:04:29

Irene- so why are so many people in US supportive, do you find? Quite how he won them over I don't know.

difficultpickle Sun 20-Jan-13 09:09:03

very moving interview with David Walsh on Sportsweek this morning. His son was killed in a cycling accident aged 12. Armstrong said that was the only reason Walsh went after him. Absolutely appalling behaviour from Armstrong. Jail would be too good a place for him.

Yes , I heard that interview with David Walsh too. Very sad.

On one level, in terms of the drug-taking, Lance was not doing anything differently to a lot of the peloton - Jan Ullrich, Bjarne Riis etc...

What sets him apart from those peers was:
- the imposition of that regime on others in his teams. He tries to say that he was only the Leader of the team and could not sack teammates for refusing to comply. He forgot to mention that he was a part-owner of the team and could (and did) get rid of team mates. Oprah talked of the pressure to "make the team" - she forgot to mention that these were people's livelihoods. He held power over their income.
- the reach in to the UCI. The fact he evaded positive tests and was able to direct testing towards his competitors as Tyler alleges.
- the implacable determination to bring down anyone who gainsayed him - he destroyed people's lives, he had them followed, he had their emails and phones monitored. He physically and emotionally threatened countless people.

He admits nothing that isn't outside the statute of limitations.
He expresses no true remorse because he had no empathy and is incapable of true remorse.
He is still attempting to control the sport, his image, his income - and to some extent, is still succeeding.

He makes my blood run cold.

difficultpickle Sun 20-Jan-13 10:42:13

Hopefully this link for his article will work.

I hope everyone on this thread reads this and I defy anyone no to be deeply moved by David Walsh's words.

ANd I forgot to add the lying under oath bit.

Off to read bisjo's link.

What I don't understand is how those people he sued for saying he took drugs and was a cheat can't now have him locked up for lying under oath?

Surely bringing proceedings against someone for slander or whatever it was should be illegal or at least be a criminal matter once found out that they were not lying after all.

It was obvious he was a druggie and cheating or he would have said he did not take drugs rather than always saying he had never been 'found' to have taken drugs?

difficultpickle Sun 20-Jan-13 10:51:42

Sunday Times are suing him. Statute of Limitations applies to perjury. He says he didn't cheat in his comeback tours and the SoL applies to his earlier tours. He has been very careful in what he has 'admitted' to.

I already had a low opinion of him from what I read previously. However today's Sunday Times article (which is not hidden behind their paywall) is one of the most compelling pieces of sports journalism I have ever read.

coldinthesun Sun 20-Jan-13 11:03:03

Yeah thats the thing that gets me. Armstrong does not think the bit about lying under oath, bullying and ruining careers etc matters.

His flippant joke about Betsy Andreu pretty much represents the whole thing and his total lack of comprehension. He is still trying to have a cheap dig at her even now.

He is still only seeing himself as having done the same as those who got banned for 6 months at getting caught. He is still incapable of seeing the difference.

He thinks his ban is unfair compared to others, not realising his actions are just not comparable to others.

Sickening in the extreme.

EldritchCleavage Sun 20-Jan-13 13:47:22

Statute of Limitations applies to perjury

Not in England. He can't be prosecuted because he isn't here to be arrested and charged. If he came to the UK (which he won't) he'd be just as liable to arrest as Jeffrey Archer was.

Just wandered onto this thread by accident as it's on DOTD

My view ? I don't really get why everyone is so obsessed with sport, so why people are so surprised and upset.

But obviously I get that drug taking does rather ruin any sport.

Did enjoy the Olympics and Paralympics but that was probably more as a national event than for the sport in it's own right.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Sun 20-Jan-13 13:55:14

lol

IreneR Sun 20-Jan-13 15:38:38

What I've seen and heard tends to be of the "everybody else dopes; why pick on Lance?" variety, or "but he does so much for charity!!" One guy even said that Lance's detracters were just jealous of his incredible talent...?!?!?!?!

Admittedly, I live in an area where cycling and cyclists are popular, so perhaps people have more faith in what they want to believe than what is true.

I've never paid much attention to any of it, to be honest, but having just read an interview with Kathy LeMond -- wife of the only American who really won the TdF -- Lance sounds perfectly terrible: threatening, harrassing, menacing.

I'll never understand people defending someone like that.

I don't quite know where I read this but the issue with drug taking during Olympic events, is that the athletes are usually clean during the contest and instead testing should be taking place throughout the time between events. The drugs give the competitors advantages over their rivals in terms of being able to train longer and harder and recover faster.

The point of all of this even if it is 'only' sport or 'only' a race the method was flawed, the participant a bully and a liar and shouldn't stand. He is unrepentant merely sorry that he couldn't wangle his way out of the corner

DayToDayShit Sun 20-Jan-13 20:48:00

when can we watch it?

difficultpickle Sun 20-Jan-13 21:34:04

Sportsweek (Radio 4 today) interviewed Ben Johnson. Interesting perspective. He was very like LA in saying that he wasn't cheating, just trying to have a level playing field and doing the same as everyone else. He said he was picked on because he won. He really doesn't get what he did wrong and how his sport was almost destroyed by his actions. Really mirrored LA.

TheSmallClanger Sun 20-Jan-13 21:35:36

It's on Youtube.

TomDudgeon Sun 20-Jan-13 22:31:08

I just don't understand how he got so powerful.

bobthebuddha Mon 21-Jan-13 13:51:19

"it has not been part of the culture of British cycling to blood dope and take drugs"

I'm afraid that's not really true. Tommy Simpson was doped up (not the only British cyclist to be so either) and died on the Tour itself.

Tanith Mon 21-Jan-13 14:54:12

I did find this amusing:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720

ednatate82 Fri 25-Jan-13 06:52:30

After all success and retirement, he came out. He should be stripped. Also his medical condition had allowed for certain drugs to be used.

ivykaty44 Sat 26-Jan-13 13:51:13

there is a report today that says he lied int he opraph interview - well there is a surprise, lier lies now there is a noval notion.

But the doping cheif is now talking deals - if you tell us everything your ban from cycling will be lifted - but

who would want to race against him?

Surely no one would actually want to race against this man - would they?

Or am I missing something here?

cartimandua Sat 26-Jan-13 16:54:41

He isn't wanting to go back to road racing - all that is finished. He wants to compete in triathlons and marathons, and organisers who have signed up to the USADA/WADA code of conduct won't let him while the lifetime ban from any competition lasts. While he denied that he doped during his comeback, there are dodgy blood values and USADA reckons that the chances that he didn't are one in a million.

A condition for shortening the ban is that he tells ALL the truth, which he doesn't want to do, because he could lay himself open to prosecution for fraud, and because he will look even worse that he does now having supposedly confessed all. USADA has given him until 6th February to respond to the offer to reconsider the lifetime ban in exchange for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The offer is only to reconsider, not lift the ban altogether, so whatever he does he's going to be out for at least another two years and probably longer.

Other competitors would be put in an impossible position. They might not want to race against him but if he is allowed to compete the only thing they could do is not compete themselves, which is not fair on them.

ivykaty44 Sat 26-Jan-13 17:12:21

If he was allowed to compete and no one else competed - then it would surely be a hollow victory.

It wouldn't be fair for the other competitors but if they all didn't compete then maybe it would be a clear message that there is no point in racing against a cheat, it isn't impossible to call effectively a strike

cartimandua Sat 26-Jan-13 18:26:46

He competed in huge marathons (New York, Boston) thousands of people take part in. Many of them would be running for charity as they do in the London marathon. For elite athletes their times are important for things like Olympic qualification. Why should they have to give all that up for the sake of making a point about Armstrong? Who is the one in the wrong here?

ivykaty44 Sat 26-Jan-13 22:03:57

would you want to compete against him?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now