Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Lance Armstrong is a liar and a cheat.

11 teammates testified in case against Armstrong

Lance Armstrong challenged the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to name names and show what it had on him.

On Wednesday, it did.

The anti-doping group released a report on its case against Armstrong — a point-by-point roadmap of the lengths it says Armstrong went to in winning seven Tour de France titles USADA has ordered taken away.

In more than 150 pages filled with allegations, USADA names 11 former teammates — George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis among them — as key witnesses.

It details the way those men and others say drugs were delivered and administered to Armstrong's teams. It discusses Armstrong's continuing relationship with and payments to a doctor, Michele Ferrari, years after Ferrari was sanctioned in Italy and Armstrong claimed to have broken ties with him.

by Anonymousreply 19801/19/2013

It presents as matter-of-fact reality that winning and doping went hand in hand in cycling and that Armstrong's teams were the best at getting it done without getting caught. He won the Tour as leader of the U.S. Postal Service team from 1999-2004 and again in 2005 with the Discovery Channel as the primary sponsor.

The report also uses Armstrong's own words against him.

"We had one goal and one ambition and that was to win the greatest bike race in the world and not just to win it once, but to keep winning it," the report reads, quoting from testimony Armstrong gave in an earlier legal proceeding.

But, USADA said, the path Armstrong chose to pursue his goals "ran far outside the rules." It accuses him of depending on performance-enhancing drugs to fuel his victories and "more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his teammates" do the same.

by Anonymousreply 110/10/2012

I'm glad this smug asshole is getting what he deserves for his years of cheating.

by Anonymousreply 210/10/2012

Armstrong did not fight the USADA charges, but insists he never cheated.

His attorney, Tim Herman, called the report "a one-sided hatchet job — a taxpayer funded tabloid piece rehashing old, disproved, unreliable allegations based largely on axe-grinders, serial perjurers, coerced testimony, sweetheart deals and threat-induced stories."

Aware of the criticism his agency has faced from Armstrong and his legion of followers, USADA Chief Executive Travis Tygart insisted his group handled this case under the same rules as any other. He pointed out that Armstrong was given the chance to take his case to arbitration and he declined, choosing in August to accept the sanctions instead.

"We focused solely on finding the truth without being influenced by celebrity or non-celebrity, threats, personal attacks or political because that is what clean athletes deserve and demand," Tygart said.

Some of the newest information — never spelled out in detail before Wednesday — includes USADA's depiction of Armstrong's continuing relationship with Ferrari. Like Armstrong, he has received a lifetime ban from USADA.

Ferrari, long thought of as the mastermind of Armstrong's alleged doping plan, was investigated in Italy and Armstrong claimed he had cut ties with him after a 2004 conviction. USADA cites financial records that show payments of at least $210,000 in the two years after that.

"The repeated efforts by Armstrong and his representatives to mischaracterize and minimize Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari are indicative of the true nature of that relationship," the report states. "If there is not something to hide, there is no need to hide it and certainly no need to repeatedly lie about it."

In some ways, the USADA report simply pulls together and amplifies allegations that have followed Armstrong ever since he beat cancer and won the Tour for the first time. At various times and in different forums, Landis, Hamilton and others have said that Armstrong encouraged doping on his team and used banned substances himself.

by Anonymousreply 310/10/2012

While the arguments about Armstrong will continue among sports fans — and there is still a question of whether USADA or the International Cycling Union (UCI) has ultimate control of taking away his Tour titles — the new report puts a cap on a long round of official investigations. Armstrong was cleared of criminal charges in February after a federal grand jury probe that lasted about two years.

Tygart said evidence from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the U.S. Postal Service team's doping activities, provided material for the report. Other cyclists interviewed by USADA included Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie. Tygart said the evidence shows the code of silence that dominated cycling has been shattered.

"It took tremendous courage for the riders on the USPS Team and others to come forward and speak truthfully," he said. "It is not easy to admit your mistakes and accept your punishment. But that is what these riders have done for the good of the sport."

In a letter sent to USADA attorneys Tuesday, Herman dismissed any evidence provided by Landis and Hamilton, calling them "serial perjurers and have told diametrically contradictory stories under oath."

Hincapie's role in the investigation — not confirmed until Wednesday's report — could be more damaging, as he was one of Armstrong's closest and most loyal teammates through the years.

"Two years ago, I was approached by U.S. federal investigators, and more recently by USADA, and asked to tell of my personal experience in these matters," the cyclist said in a statement published shortly after USADA's release. "I would have been much more comfortable talking only about myself, but understood that I was obligated to tell the truth about everything I knew. So that is what I did."

Hincapie's two-page statement did not mention Armstrong by name.

Written in a more conversational style than a typical legal document, the report lays out in chronological order, starting in 1998 and running through 2009:

— Multiple examples of Armstrong using the blood-boosting hormone EPO, citing the "clear finding" of EPO in six blood samples from the 1999 Tour de France that were retested. UCI concluded those samples were mishandled and couldn't be used to prove anything. In bringing up the samples, USADA said it considers them corroborating evidence that isn't necessary given the testimony of its witnesses.

— Testimony from Hamilton, Landis and Hincapie, all of whom say they received EPO from Armstrong.

— Evidence of the pressure Armstrong put on the riders to go along with the doping program.

by Anonymousreply 410/10/2012

It is a front page article on the NY Times web site. A lot more that 11 have provided evidence against him. The article claims he was not just a participant but the leader of a professionally carried out policy of doping in his sport including trafficing in illegal drugs and laundering of money.

It appears that he is one of the biggest liars who ever participated in a major international sport (and cheater of course.) Sammy Sousa and Mark McGuire move over.

by Anonymousreply 510/10/2012

It still all sounds highly unlikely to me.

by Anonymousreply 610/10/2012

Charlie, what do you do in NYC?

Lance is worshipped down here in Austin. It's sickening.

by Anonymousreply 710/10/2012

[quote]Lance is worshipped down here in Austin.

Not any more.

by Anonymousreply 810/10/2012

That's one very dramatic fall from grace.

by Anonymousreply 910/10/2012

Lance is the stupidist name in the world.

by Anonymousreply 1010/10/2012

Nothing will happen to him. Now, if he was black....

by Anonymousreply 1110/10/2012

Like Paterno, the truth comes out about these sports heros.

by Anonymousreply 1210/10/2012

How could he get away with it for so long?

by Anonymousreply 1310/10/2012

The steroid use probably gave him cancer. Greedy idiot.

by Anonymousreply 1410/10/2012

Does testosterone really cause cancer? I know it shrinks your balls.

by Anonymousreply 1510/10/2012

It can be so difficult for fans to accept the truth about their heroes.

Lance's downfall is a real shame for the LiveStrong organization which is such an uplifting charity. Having someone as your figurehead that has excelled in their sport via cheating and continues to accept no responsibility for it has got to put them in difficult spot.

by Anonymousreply 1610/11/2012

Apparently donations to LiveStrong foundation has doubled in the past couple of months!

I guess people do not care about doping as long as you win.

by Anonymousreply 1710/11/2012

But R17, I'm sure none of these people follow professional cycling per se and are more fans of Armstrong or people who want to contribute to a good cause. If they knew how serious this is - the testimony from Hincapie, Zabriskie and Vande Velde, for example - maybe they wouldn't be donating so much.

by Anonymousreply 1810/11/2012

The blind faith in Lance was a typical 'us/USA vs. France' kind of deal with his fans feeling like some snail eating Frenchmen are trying to take down a true and genuine American hero and role model.

The reports of him practically being the kingpin of a doping and drug scheme is surely punch in a gut for a lot of US fans.

by Anonymousreply 1910/11/2012

Given all the "praise" that Armstrong and his defenders come out with about the Livestrong Foundation, I imagined it was doing some important work, such as funding cancer research or donating cancer equipment to hospitals. So, I looked up the website only to discover that it's simply another Armstrong self-promotional money-grabbing scam, the majority of its projects being about people paying 200 dollars to meet in groups to talk and "empower" each other.

I also noticed that the website has been completely redesigned. And, from what I understand, claims about donations being doubled came from the Armstrong camp, although no specific figures were given.

livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Approach

"We empower the cancer community to address the unmet needs of cancer survivors. To do so, we encourage collaboration, knowledge-sharing and partnership.

"Then, we develop evidence-based solutions to address both the common and unique problems survivors are facing around the world."

by Anonymousreply 2010/11/2012

[quote]Does testosterone really cause cancer?

Why else would a young, seemingly uber-healthy individual get cancer? Seems logical to me. He got what he deserves.

by Anonymousreply 2110/11/2012

OMG, R21 - Rosie was right! Liars really DO get cancer!!!

by Anonymousreply 2210/11/2012

No, testosterone doesn't cause cancer.

by Anonymousreply 2310/11/2012

Yes, r21, when people get sick it's their own fault.

by Anonymousreply 2410/11/2012

I think he and others got away with it because it was so pervasive and covered up- until they all en mass decided to talk.

by Anonymousreply 2510/11/2012

[quote]Tygart said evidence from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the U.S. Postal Service team's doping activities, provided material for the report. Other cyclists interviewed by USADA included Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie. Tygart said the evidence shows the code of silence that dominated cycling has been shattered.

No, all the evidence shows is what happens when people who have committed the same crime are offered immunity from prosecution.

I think Armstrong was guilty but so were all the rest of them.

by Anonymousreply 2610/11/2012

I say seize his bank accounts. Take the money back.

by Anonymousreply 2710/11/2012

Oh for fuck sake, who cares? He rode a bicycle for a living.

by Anonymousreply 2810/11/2012

R26, it's not that easy for the rest of them. Look at the stats I've cut from a longer article:

The six active former teammates, Levi Leipheimer (Omega Pharma-QuickStep), Christian Vande Velde (Garmin-Sharp), David Zabriskie (Garmin-Sharp), Tom Danielson (Garmin-Sharp), Michael Barry (Sky) and George Hincapie (BMC) have subsequently all been suspended. All actively race but ended their seasons in September. Both Hincapie and Barry announced they would retire this season.

Leipheimer accepted a suspension from September 1 and was disqualified from results from June 1999 to July 30, 2006, and from July 7 to July 29, 2007.

Hincapie accepted a suspension from September 1 and disqualification from results from May 31, 2004 to July 31, 2006.

Vande Velde accepted a suspension from September 9 and disqualification from results from June 4, 2004 to April 31, 2006.

Zabriskie accepted a suspension from September 1 and disqualification from results from May 31, 2003 to July 31, 2006.

Danielson accepted a suspension from September 1 and disqualification from results from March 1, 2005 to September 23, 2006.

Barry accepted a suspension from September 10 and disqualification from results from May 13, 2003 to July 31, 2006.

All declined to participate in the 2012 Olympic Games and were praised by USADA for confessing and accepting their suspensions.

"The riders who participated in the USPS Team doping conspiracy and truthfully assisted have been courageous in making the choice to stop perpetuating the sporting fraud, and they have suffered greatly," USADA said in a written statement.

"In addition to the public revelations, the active riders have been suspended and disqualified appropriately in line with the rules. In some part, it would have been easier for them if it all would just go away; however, they love the sport, and they want to help young athletes have hope that they are not put in the position they were -- to face the reality that in order to climb to the heights of their sport they had to sink to the depths of dangerous cheating."

"I have personally talked with and heard these athletes' stories and firmly believe that, collectively, these athletes, if forgiven and embraced, have a chance to leave a legacy far greater for the good of the sport than anything they ever did on a bike. Lance Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution. He rejected it."

by Anonymousreply 2910/11/2012

I thought cyclists get testicular cancer from the bike seat jamming them in the nuts all the time.

by Anonymousreply 3110/11/2012

R30 doesn't understand anything about this case, what its core charges are, who the people and organisations involved are and what its huge ramifications will be. Just an opportunity to make a stupid racist comment, echoing Lance himself.

by Anonymousreply 3210/11/2012

[quote]Why else would a young, seemingly uber-healthy individual get cancer? Seems logical to me

And you seem pretty dumb to the rest of us.

Many young, seemingly über-healthy people get various forms of cancer. Genetic predisposition often plays a key role.

by Anonymousreply 3310/11/2012

the steroids DO cause testicular cancer. do some research. it's almost a given that Lance gave himself cancer in order to win races.

by Anonymousreply 3410/11/2012

He also seems like a psychopath.

by Anonymousreply 3510/11/2012

Meanest person on a bike since Miss Gulch.

by Anonymousreply 3610/11/2012

The people I've spoken to about this, noncyclists, don't really care about the steroid business in any sport.

We expect our athletes to be such supermen, what did we think would happen? We're so accustomed to seeing CGI effects that we think people can perform as a CGI effect on a daily basis, and sports fans expect them to perform as well as a CGI effect.

by Anonymousreply 3710/11/2012

Wonder if Sheryl Crow dumped him because she found out about the doping?

by Anonymousreply 3910/11/2012

Wish he could go to prison.

by Anonymousreply 4010/11/2012

He's going to have to pay back millions of dollars.

by Anonymousreply 4110/11/2012

r39, I thought he dumped her.

by Anonymousreply 4210/11/2012

So is all his charity work supposed to be redemption for being a cheat & liar. Like molesters always seem to go out of their way to do charitable work to cover their dirty deeds

by Anonymousreply 4310/11/2012

If you look at what his "charity work" actually was, it was more about promoting his ego and making him look wonderful than helping cancer patients. Can someone actually point to a valuable project run by Livestrong?

by Anonymousreply 4410/12/2012

How much was his kick-back on the cancer donations?

by Anonymousreply 4510/12/2012

He dumped Cheryl after her cancer diagnosis. He didn't want a damaged woman.

by Anonymousreply 4610/12/2012

It's like Joe Paterno and that kiddie host mentioned on the other thread -- an aura of victory and a lot of money being thrown around enables these guys to do just about anything they want.

by Anonymousreply 4710/12/2012

Mass Resignations at Embattled State Cancer Agency

By PAUL J. WEBER Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas October 13, 2012 (AP)

At least seven scientists resigned in protest this week from Texas' embattled $3 billion cancer-fighting program, claiming the agency created with the backing of the governor and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong is charting a new "politically driven" path that puts commercial interests before science.

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas has awarded nearly $700 million in grants since 2009, making Texas home to the nation's biggest pot of cancer-research dollars behind only the federal National Institutes of Health. But how it picks projects has fallen under intensifying scrutiny, beginning in May when its chief scientific officer resigned in protest after it approved — without scientific review — a $20 million commercialization project.

Nobel laureate Dr. Phillip Sharp was among those stepping down this week, writing in his resignation letter that the CPRI is making funding decisions that carry a "suspicion of favoritism" in how the state is handing out taxpayer dollars. Dr. Bryan Dynlacht, another reviewer who's leaving, warned that the agency was headed down a path of systematic abuses.

"You may find that it was not worth subverting the entire scientific enterprise — and my understanding was that the intended goal of CPRIT was to fund the best cancer research in Texas — on account of this ostensibly new, politically driven, commercialization-based mission," Dynlacht wrote in his letter.

Commercialization projects focus on turning research into drugs or other sellable products rather than funding the research itself.

The letters were obtained by The Associated Press through an open records request. Sharp is professor at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while Dynlacht is at the New York University School of Medicine, wrote in his resignation letter.

In a statement, CPRIT executive director Bill Gimson called the accusations false and misinformed.

CPRIT was created though an ambitious bond measure approved by Texas voters in 2007. The agency has scientists across the country who help review proposals and choose projects to fund.

But in May, chief scientific officer Dr. Alfred Gilman resigned in protest after the CPRIT approved a $20 million grant for a so-called incubator project at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He told colleagues in heated emails that he was trying to prevent misuse of taxpayer dollars and funding decisions based on political considerations.

It was the largest amount of money the agency ever awarded for a single project. But since it was a commercialization project, it didn't undergo scientific review. The agency has since said the project would undergo such a review.

The latest resignations come on the eve of potentially significant changes in how the agency allocates funding. CPRIT has been steering 75 percent of all funding toward research, 15 percent toward commercialization, and 10 percent toward prevention efforts such as breast cancer screenings.

by Anonymousreply 4810/14/2012

I read the accusations, but did not he, and his team, undergo urinalysis testing? If so, why were not the results part of the accusations? Where is the physical evidence?

by Anonymousreply 4910/14/2012

They did re-test his samples, now that they have a way to trace EPO, and the tests were positive. I can't remember where I read it, though. If I find the article I will post it here.

by Anonymousreply 5010/14/2012

[italic]As part of its investigation, Usada said it recently obtained additional data from French officials who had retested Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour. For procedural reasons, those samples cannot be used to sanction Armstrong. But the Usada report indicated that advances in EPO testing since then conclusively showed that he used the hormone. The report said the retesting produced “resoundingly positive values” from six samples. [/italic]

by Anonymousreply 5110/14/2012

Wow, the entire fictional world he created is collapsing.

by Anonymousreply 5210/14/2012

On a personal level, why is Lance such an asshole? Was he an abused child?

by Anonymousreply 5310/14/2012

Good. I am glad this asshole is not being let off the hook. I don't understand why so many straight men worship Lance Armstrong. By all accounts, he is an egotistical asshole who needed to be knocked down a few pegs and brought back to reality.

by Anonymousreply 5410/14/2012

Wow. A cheat and a liar. He must be a republican.

by Anonymousreply 5510/14/2012

Unbelievable that there are still rabid fans that refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence and cling to deluded fantasies of him as a hero.

Another example of the mass lunacy of our fucked up country.

by Anonymousreply 5610/14/2012

He resigned as head of the Live Strong charity today.

by Anonymousreply 5710/17/2012

Nike formally dropped him

by Anonymousreply 5810/17/2012

Tell me about it.

by Anonymousreply 5910/17/2012

You mean he was a cheater? What balls!

by Anonymousreply 6010/17/2012

He has two balls!

by Anonymousreply 6110/17/2012

No, R61; he hasn't.

by Anonymousreply 6210/18/2012

To anyone still doubting his guilt, think about this; cycling is known as on of the most "dirty" sports. The use of performance enhancing drugs is rampant. So if everyone else was using and Lance was the only one not using but still continually winning races, then he has to be a superhuman freak of nature. It's just not possible.

by Anonymousreply 6310/18/2012

[quote]So if everyone else was using and Lance was the only one not using but still continually winning races, then he has to be a superhuman freak of nature.

In short: Lance Armstrong is an American.

by Anonymousreply 6410/18/2012

The amazing 2012 just gets better and better for this douche.

Tufts University is rescinding the honorary degree they gave him.

by Anonymousreply 6511/22/2012

Okay, fine. You can take away my seven TDF jerseys and Olympic medal. But you'll get my honorary Tufts degree when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands!

by Anonymousreply 6611/22/2012

How in the world was he cleared of all criminal wrongdoing when every teammate he's ever had has testified against him???

by Anonymousreply 6711/22/2012

yes he is a cheat and he got cancer because of all the shit he was putting into his system. Now if only they would investigate tennis players...

by Anonymousreply 6811/22/2012

I wonder if anyone in the media will actually point out that testicular cancer is caused by the kind of doping Armstrong was doing. He was turned into such a saint over that, yet it's clear that his cancer was a direct result. They still steer clear of that information.

by Anonymousreply 6911/22/2012

[quote] Lance Armstrong is a liar and a cheat.

And hot as hell

by Anonymousreply 7011/23/2012

Fifth Estate special : Lance Armstrong: Master of Spin

by Anonymousreply 7111/24/2012

r70 = Jake Gyllenhaal

by Anonymousreply 7211/24/2012

In a bit of a twist, Armstrong considers admitting to doping:

[quote]Lance Armstrong, who this fall was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping and barred for life from competing in all Olympic sports, has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.

by Anonymousreply 7301/04/2013

what a narcissist. he's textbook.

by Anonymousreply 7401/04/2013

[quote]he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.

He needs the money for legal fees and demands from companies who want refunds on the money he won.

by Anonymousreply 7501/04/2013

Agree, R74. I bet he's only doing this because of money. The guy has no guilty conscience whatsoever. A true creep. When I read about his bullying of those who came forth to tell the truth I wonder if he is capable of worse than lying and cheating. He's almost pathological.

by Anonymousreply 7601/04/2013

The rest of the article

[italic]For more than a decade, Armstrong has vehemently denied ever doping, even after antidoping officials laid out their case against him in October in hundreds of pages of eyewitness testimony from teammates, e-mail correspondence, financial records and laboratory analyses.

When asked if Armstrong might admit to doping, Tim Herman, Armstrong’s longtime lawyer, said: “I do not know about that. I suppose anything is possible, for sure. Right now, that’s really not on the table.”

Armstrong has been under pressure from various fronts to confess. Wealthy supporters of Livestrong, the charity he founded after surviving testicular cancer, have been trying to persuade him to come forward so he could clear his conscience and save the organization from further damage, one person with knowledge of the situation said.

Several legal cases stand in the way of a confession, the people familiar with the situation said. Among the obstacles is a federal whistle-blower case in which he and several team officials from Armstrong’s United States Postal Service cycling team are accused of defrauding the government by allowing doping on the squad when the team’s contract with the Postal Service explicitly forbade it.

Although Herman said such an option was not currently on the table, the people familiar with the situation said Armstrong, 41, was in fact moving toward confessing and had even been in discussions with the United States Anti-Doping Agency. Armstrong had met with Travis Tygart, the agency’s chief executive, in an effort to mitigate the lifetime ban he received for playing a lead role in doping on his Tour-winning teams, according to one person briefed on the situation.

Armstrong was also seeking to meet with David Howman, the director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, that person said.

Herman denied that Armstrong was talking to Tygart.

None of the people with knowledge of Armstrong’s situation wanted their names published because it would jeopardize their access to information on the matter.

Tygart declined to comment. Howman, who was on vacation in New Zealand, did not immediately respond to a phone call and an e-mail.

Armstrong has hopes of competing in triathlons and running events, but those competitions are often sanctioned by organizations that adhere to the World Anti-Doping Code, under which Armstrong received his lifetime ban.

According to the World Anti-Doping Code, an athlete might be eligible for a reduced punishment if he fully confesses and details how he doped, who helped him dope and how he got away with doping.

Marion Jones, who won five medals at the 2000 Olympics, denied doping for years until giving a teary-eyed confession on the steps of a Westchester County courthouse in 2007. She spent six months in prison for lying to federal investigators about her doping and for her involvement in a check-fraud scheme.

The timeline for Armstrong’s deciding whether to confess is unclear, but it is partly based on whether the United States Justice Department will join the whistle-blower lawsuit, which was filed under the False Claims Act. The sole plaintiff of that lawsuit is Floyd Landis, Armstrong’s former Postal Service teammate who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping.

If the Justice Department also becomes a plaintiff, the case would be more formidable than if Landis pursued it alone. Landis stands to collect up to 30 percent of any money won in the case, which could be in the millions. The team’s contract with the Postal Service from 2000 to 2004 was more than $30 million.

Armstrong is also facing two other civil lawsuits, one that involves the Dallas-based insurance company SCA Promotions, which is trying to recoup at least $5 million it covered when Armstrong won multiple Tours.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 7701/04/2013

[italic]The company withheld that $5 million bonus from Armstrong after he won the 2004 Tour because of doping accusations that surfaced in the book “L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong,” which was published in France. Armstrong sued the company, and the case was settled for $7.5 million.

Armstrong is also being sued by the British newspaper The Sunday Times over the settlement of a libel case in which the newspaper paid Armstrong nearly $500,000.

But what worries Armstrong and his lawyers the most, two of the people with knowledge of the situation said, is that he could be facing criminal charges of perjury if he confesses because he had given sworn depositions in the SCA case that he had never doped.

Before coming forward, Armstrong would need assurances from the Department of Justice that he would not be prosecuted for those crimes, those two people said.

After antidoping officials issued its report on him, Armstrong cut all ties with his charity, and his sponsors, including Nike and other longtime supporters, abandoned him.

“He’s doing O.K. for a guy that has had his livelihood and his life torn from him, but he’s very strong,” Herman said.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 7801/04/2013

If he had any BALLS whatsoever--or had an ounce of decency in his steroid-filled body--he's have admitted to this and apologized to his fans a long time ago!

by Anonymousreply 7901/04/2013

He'll work out a way to make himself the victim and so have people support him/fund him again. Maybe he'll blame America's desire for winners. 'I did it for you, Damian!'

by Anonymousreply 8001/05/2013

[quote]He's almost pathological

Almost? I think he IS pathological!

by Anonymousreply 8101/05/2013

How far he's fallen. How does he even get out of bed?

by Anonymousreply 8201/05/2013

no R79 he has NO balls actually (well maybe he still has one). Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Seriously though, the only reason he's considering telling the truth is because he probably wants to write a book for which he'll be paid millions and the only way he can do that is if he fesses up. Pathetic really.

by Anonymousreply 8301/05/2013

So when a college gives you an honorary degree and decides to take it back, does someone come to your house to get it?

Do they erase your name from their records and pretend they never welcomed you on stage?

Does the speech you gave remain published with an asterisk?

by Anonymousreply 8401/05/2013

What are you talking about R84? This man made money based on a fraud. He is a common thief.

by Anonymousreply 8501/05/2013

Is he working with Paula Deen's publicist now?

by Anonymousreply 8601/05/2013

I know that r85 -- I was just wondering what these schools were thinking when they first gave him the awards.

It seems the Us were famewhoring when he was on his deceitful way up, and are acting the same now that he's been busted.

And some unheralded scholar continues working for our good, lonely and in the dark.

by Anonymousreply 8701/05/2013

He'll still have to deal with all the multimillion dollar lawsuits against him.

What will his defenders say now?

by Anonymousreply 8801/05/2013

I know that one (British?) paper is going after him to get their money back after he won an award from them because they'd written he was doping.

by Anonymousreply 8901/05/2013

I think it was one of Murdoch's papers, too.

by Anonymousreply 9001/05/2013

[post by racist shit-stain # 2 removed.]

by Anonymousreply 9101/05/2013

Have any of you seen this documentary?

by Anonymousreply 9201/05/2013

I don't really get the people in this thread linking these doping-cases with his getting cancer. He was diagnosed with cancer in 1996, IIRC. He won his first Tour de France in 1999. Not saying he wasn't doped earlier in his career, but it's not the use of doping he's currently accused of that might have given him the cancer. That said, I never cared a lot about him. I know arrogance, a certain amount of ruthlessness and egoism are "good" traits if you want to win the big tours, but he's always seemed incredibly unsympathetic to me. And from what I've read, he's got very few friends among the riders, unlike other big names. (You won't find anyone talking bad about Indurain, for instance.) To the poster wondering about his upbringing: His mother had him at 16, and I believe he's never wanted to meet his father. (That's all I remember without looking him up at Wikipedia.)

Before he was diagnosed with cancer his career was promising (he won the world championship in 1993 and he won a stage in Tour de France 1995, a couple of days after a team mate of his died in a horrible crash) but he was built differently back then, he had much bigger muscles and a bit of puppy-fat. He was completely changed when he returned to cycling.

by Anonymousreply 9301/05/2013

R80

Exactly. He's doing this to try to gain sympathy. At any rate, by even just saying he'll do it if.... and then fill in the blanks for what he wants, means he has no remorse and no character at all.

I'd respect him more if he did it and stuck to his story by saying he didn't.

He's a Grade A Douche,

And saying he'd confess if... isn't that enough of a confession for people to understand that he did it and he's a prick?

Guess not.

by Anonymousreply 9401/05/2013

His damage control pr is trying a slow release process.

He should have kept lying. This is a really, really bad move. He is attempting to recover quickly, and that's not going to happen.

He is going to be sued into oblivion by EVERY organization that worked with him.

He has, quite literally, completely ruined people's lives, to the point of bankruptcy and total socialization. He will be rightfully sued for libel by almost everyone who was a teammate and went against him. He will pay out millions to those people.

Once the lawsuits are completed, and that will be at least 5-10 years, he will be utterly ruined financially. He'll be ruined as a persona.

Cycling as a sport is finished in this country for at least a decade, if not longer.

His cancer organization is done.

by Anonymousreply 9501/05/2013

"socialization" = ostracization

by Anonymousreply 9601/05/2013

R95

Or he'll just hide his money somewhere and claim Bankruptcy. Sue him all you want and get nothing since there's "no money."

by Anonymousreply 9701/05/2013

I won't give him any benefit of the doubt but a part of me wants him to confess because I'll both be fascinated and repulsed by how he'll reconcile his confession with the years and years of vehement putative denial.

by Anonymousreply 9801/05/2013

Yes, R98. I'm really curious to see how this arrogant ass handles it.

by Anonymousreply 9901/05/2013

I bet r97 is right.

He has a lot of money stashed somewhere safe, I would guess.

by Anonymousreply 10001/05/2013

[quote]I don't really get the people in this thread linking these doping-cases with his getting cancer. He was diagnosed with cancer in 1996, IIRC. He won his first Tour de France in 1999.

Watch the video at R92. He had been doping prior to his cancer diagnosis.

by Anonymousreply 10101/05/2013

Ah, okay r101. Didn't catch that. To me it just sounded like people were blaming the use of doping from when he won the Tours for his cancer. As I said, I'm not saying he wasn't doped before his illness, so what that documentary might have to say won't surprise me. I've followed cycle sport since 1995, so I'm well aware of the doping-issue. (How can you not be, when one of the first deaths because of doping happened in the late 19th century...)

by Anonymousreply 10201/05/2013

He doped and got cancer... no doubt knowing why he got it... and then continued doping after he beat cancer.

What a guy.

by Anonymousreply 10301/05/2013

R103 lets add in there after he learned he had cancer and was going to lose his balls, he insisted his wife crank out a bunch of kids for him via a.i. then, once he hit mega fame, he ditched his wife and kids and hooks up with some other woman.

What a guy indeed.

by Anonymousreply 10401/05/2013

R104

And I think it's been mentioned here before, but worth mentioning again...

Gets involved with a woman who, once she gets cancer, ditches her.

by Anonymousreply 10501/05/2013

Another perspective by a Guardian writer who thinks that the NYTimes journalist planted the story to crate interest in her upcoming book on Anderson:

[italic]Macur quotes anti-doping experts who say the most Armstrong could expect from a confession, in the circumstances, would be to cut his ban from life to eight years, at best four. That would make him 45 before he could compete again as a clean athlete, and perhaps nearly 50.

After all that we've seen of Lance Armstrong down the years – the bullish obstinacy, the extreme alpha-male aggression, the ruthless willingness to burn relationships and ruin others' lives – can we really be expected to believe that the guy would now hold up his hand and take some very bitter medicine, just so that he could compete in his twilight years as a masters athlete?

Armstrong won (sic) seven consecutive Tours de France by cheating, yes, but he was also the master tactician. Even now, with the limited avenues open to him, I can't see how Lance's lizard brain would run the cost-benefit analysis of his options and come up with "confession". I hate to say it, but to me, this smells more like the story of a reporter with a book contract tempted to over-reach and one or two anti-doping officials still settling scores.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 10601/05/2013

Lance needs to just GO AWAY.

He's an embarrassment.

by Anonymousreply 10701/05/2013

Are his fans still supporting him like they were when his titles were stripped away (harping about conspiracies and sabotage)? I never liked Armstrong; he seemed extremely smug and arrogant.

by Anonymousreply 10801/05/2013

[quote]ets add in there after he learned he had cancer and was going to lose his balls, he insisted his wife crank out a bunch of kids for him via a.i.

Armstrong was diagnosed and underwent an orchiectomy in 1996. His last chemotherapy treatment was in 1996. He met his wife in 1997. They married in 1998. His medical treatment received publicity. It's not as though she would have entered the marriage ignorant of the probable reproductive future.

by Anonymousreply 11001/05/2013

[quote] It's not as though she would have entered the marriage ignorant of the probable reproductive future.

True. Clearly she didn't know he was going to insist she bear him a bunch of kids, milk all the PR that could bring him and then leave her high and dry.

by Anonymousreply 11101/05/2013

He's so sexy.

by Anonymousreply 11201/05/2013

Ironman triathlon offered him a HUGE appearance fee that has never been extended to other top athletes in the sport. NBC even bumped up coverage of this year's race and added 30 minutes. Other athletes are pissed and threatening boycott.

He raced once in Hawaii and fucked up the whole event. I've covered literally thousands of athletes in hundreds of races. None ever felt the need for four huge bodyguards.

From personal experience, he is the most complete dick I have have ever met.

by Anonymousreply 11301/07/2013

He's a classic narcissist.

by Anonymousreply 11401/07/2013

r113 & r114

Man are you jealous

by Anonymousreply 11501/07/2013

Maybe I'm being too cynical but even when he was supposedly being treated for cancer, I thought that was a ruse. I always believed he was a cheater and extremely ruthless. At the time, I didn't put it past him to fake cancer to cover for some kind of experimental treatment to give himself an edge.

I remember telling that to friends when he did that interview about his cancer treatment several years ago. Maybe it was 20/20? His wife was in the interview, too. Anyway, my friends ridiculed me when I suggested my theory. Anyone else ever think that he faked the cancer?

by Anonymousreply 11601/07/2013

r116, if he faked the cancer he was quite committed to it by cutting his one ball off.

He is a total jerk and a total douche.

by Anonymousreply 11701/07/2013

[quote]he was quite committed to it by cutting his one ball off.

He said they cut one ball off

by Anonymousreply 11801/07/2013

That's an interesting question: did Lance fake his cancer? This liar and fraud would have to show me his one-ball sac before I believe him. Lance knows enough about HIPAA law to know that doctors can never contradict his cancer claim because that would be an ethical violation on their part. So he's free to lie.

by Anonymousreply 11901/07/2013

So is Oprah how Lance is going to come out about his dishonesty?

OWN is scheduled to show a 90-minute interview on a special Thursday night show next week. Jan. 17th.

by Anonymousreply 12001/09/2013

Oh good god, why the fuck did it have to be with Oprah?

by Anonymousreply 12101/09/2013

My ball itch, even though I wash and use baby powder.

by Anonymousreply 12201/09/2013

r119 - Except that one of the people who spoke out against him was the wife or girlfriend of one of his former friends who claims that she was in his hospital room when Armstrong listed the PEDs he'd been taking to his doctor. So that's not consistent with a cancer ruse. I do believe that his cancer was caused by his drug use though.

by Anonymousreply 12301/09/2013

60 minutes wil be airng a segment this coming Sunday

by Anonymousreply 12501/09/2013

R124, having an illness doesn't excuse criminal behaviour. Lots of people get sick or have cancer, but do they all cheat and lie?

by Anonymousreply 12601/09/2013

It is an incredibly dumb move to admit anything. He will not be forgiven. His is an extraordinarily rare case. He lied for decades and destroyed people's lives.

There will be no comeback for him. He will be utterly vilified, and ostracized. The moment he admits to it, his life is completely over and there will be no turning back or forgiveness. He will be openly loathed by the world.

Normally, I would say admit to it, but in this case, absolutely not. He will be financially, socially, psychologically, and physically ruined. I realize he is a narcissistic sociopath that thinks he can get away with anything, but he needs to have a millisecond of insight and realize that his life will be finished if he admits anything.

by Anonymousreply 12701/09/2013

r127 - Most of the people who wore his little yellow bracelets still think he's some kind of cancer fighting hero, unfortunately, and do not care if he cheated in a bicycle race. Even though Livestrong was exposed as nothing but a multi-million dollar "awareness" campaign that doesn't fund research or outreach.

by Anonymousreply 12901/09/2013

[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 13001/09/2013

Maybe as competition for Oprah scoring this interview, Barbara Walters could get Barry Bonds to admit to doping (and being denied a Hall of Fame vote today) on a very special edition of 20/20.

by Anonymousreply 13101/09/2013

The cancer (which was real) actually helped him become a better racer.

1. He had too much muscle mass.

The chemotherapy stripped his body of all fat and muscle. This allowed him to rebuild his body correctly for pro-cycling - lean, lean, lean.

2. He was too brash and impatient.

The cancer humbled him. Prior to the cancer, he would just pedal as fast as he could immediately. No patience for the strategy needed to win entire tours like the tour de france. This all changed after cancer.

3. Sponsorship

Coming back from cancer to ride was an advertiser's dream whether he won or not. So the $ was there for him as soon as he was able to ride again.

by Anonymousreply 13201/09/2013

[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 13301/09/2013

[quote]That vile gutter rat literally cannot get along with another living soul.

Well, except me.

by Anonymousreply 13401/09/2013

It humbled him as a racer, not as a human being.

As a racer, he used to insist on being in front, the fastest, all the time for the entire race.

For long tours, this is just not sustainable and does not lead to victory.

He had to learn to race in the middle of the pack, letting other cyclists go in front and bear / block all the wind resistance for him so that he could "rest" for most of the race and then go out in front when it was time to finish and win.

by Anonymousreply 13501/09/2013

Regarding his ex-wife, Kiki, I remember thinking " you better runnn!!!" after reading his autobiography. and then sortod worrying about her after the divorce. He is a cold-blooded sociopath.

by Anonymousreply 13601/09/2013

r136 - How did you meet him? What gave you a bad impression?

by Anonymousreply 13701/09/2013

Met him at a charity function. We have someone in common who is was a client of his long ago. Its easy to spot the personality traits of a narccisist if you have lived with one. Cold Blooded may be an exaturated description. No warmth. My impression was also clouded by what i had heard.....

by Anonymousreply 13801/09/2013

[quote]Regarding his ex-wife, Kiki,

She knew about the doping. You know that, right? She and Lance had a code name for the dope he was keeping in the fridge: "butter".

by Anonymousreply 13901/09/2013

Going on Oprah shows how far he has fallen. No one cares about Oprah anymore. They're using each other.

by Anonymousreply 14001/09/2013

Did Lance grow up white trash?

by Anonymousreply 14101/09/2013

I would imagine the women that get involved with a narcissist tend to have a lower self-esteem than most. I wonder how much his doping contributed to their breakup. She seems like a nice person. Used to write a little column for Runners World.

by Anonymousreply 14201/09/2013

Lance Armstrong is liar and a cheat with lots of money because he is a liar and a cheat.

by Anonymousreply 14301/09/2013

OP, no one cares. You are deranged and obsessed. Lying is not murder. Get over it and leave Lance alone!

by Anonymousreply 14401/09/2013

this proves that having just one ball makes you lie and cheat.

by Anonymousreply 14501/09/2013

[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 14601/09/2013

Hitler had only one ball

by Anonymousreply 14701/09/2013

You all are so jealous. Even more than the time Natalie lost the part to Tootie on the Facts of Life.

"If I gave up the part, how do you know you'd get it. Maybe you weren't second choice, maybe you were LAST."

by Anonymousreply 14801/09/2013

So question:

What's going to become of this other than his humiliation?

Are they going to tighten restrictions and put in places any measures that will prevent OTHER teams from using the same tactics he did?

Are they going to investigate ANYONE else?

If he's going to be made an example of I want to see as much news about how this changes the sport as I d about him.

by Anonymousreply 14901/10/2013

The same strong willed, narcissism that pushed him to win no matter what or how (and yes, he grew up white trash in a town where he was the gutter scum. So he was a pissed off kid and when his mother gave him a bike he would channel his rage on epic bike rides)...that same will is what led him to create the livestrong foundation.

Most leaders, whether it be in charity, politics, athletics, you name it...share many traits with sociopaths. This had been documented.

So it could be said that assholes are part of the reason why good things happen in the world.

by Anonymousreply 15001/10/2013

You know I don't care if athletes use drugs to improve their bodies. It's their body. Why is the federal govt even involved? As long as the users understand the possible side effects let them do what they think will help them improve their abilities.

Lance Armstrong? Please don't tell me that he wasn't transparent to lots of people from the get go. There are always people who fall for charlatans and buy into their game. I never paid attention to him because I couldn't care less about the sport.

There are people now, especially some sports reporters, saying they suspected he was using something and doping because he was an unlikely athlete for this sport and there were people connected to Armstrong who were giving hints about it since the 1990s.

Having said all that my grandfather was a 6 day or 8 day or whatever day bicycle racer in Italy early in the 20th century in Italy. I still don't care about this sport.

by Anonymousreply 15101/15/2013

[quote] Oh good god, why the fuck did it have to be with Oprah?

I'll bet anything she paid him. They are both narcissists and willing to fudge . He seems to be pretty much a sociopath so I doubt the only thing he's sorry about is that he got caught.

by Anonymousreply 15201/15/2013

He supports fellow liars like me. LOVE HIM!

by Anonymousreply 15301/17/2013

R152 you are right. He'd still be doping and competing in something to this day if he hadn't gotten caught.

by Anonymousreply 15401/17/2013

Bisexual, right?

by Anonymousreply 15501/17/2013

If only I could muster up the strength to give a fuck.

by Anonymousreply 15601/17/2013

Do you think if Lance loses all his money he will start doing gay pron?

by Anonymousreply 15701/17/2013

[quote]Why is the federal govt even involved?

For a start, he was funded by the Post Office, a Federal body. He made millions off the back of government funding.

by Anonymousreply 15801/17/2013

What R151 said.

by Anonymousreply 16001/17/2013

R151 and R160 Unfortunately it DOES matter that he doped. Kids look up to guys like Armstrong. Is it a good message to send to kids, to say it's ok to cheat? Doping is unhealthy. It led to Armstrong's cancer. I don't think we want to encourage kids to use PEDs. Rewarding bad behavior is just plain wrong. But not only that: what about the athletes who don't dope? Is it ok to say who cares if he doped when clean athletes don't stand a chance? The whole point of competitive sports is to compete fairly and the most talented, fittest athletes win. Doping stacks the deck in those athletes favor. It's just not fair. And then when you bring the endorsements and sponsorships into it, well that's a whole new can of worms. Nobody wants a cheat endorsing their products (at least no one wants a KNOWN cheat endorsing their products).

by Anonymousreply 16101/17/2013

Anyone watching the interview on OWN? When does it start?

by Anonymousreply 16201/17/2013

Oh I'm definitely watching. Don't love Oprah but I can't wait to see him squirm.

by Anonymousreply 16301/17/2013

R161, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't care if athletes take steroids. I took steroids once for a medical condition, and I was so crazy by the end of it, well, let's just say that if someone wants to put himself through that torture just to win some game, he deserves to win. That is motivation. That's someone who wants to win.

by Anonymousreply 16401/17/2013

R164 Roid Rage.

by Anonymousreply 16501/17/2013

I get what you are saying R164, maybe the rules should allow it. But they don't and look how this guy behaved when called on breaking the rules. He lied, he sued, he set out to destroy people. One guy had his life threatened.

And he sat back and collected millions based on his lies. He is a fraud and he's greedy.

Maybe he should have campaigned to get steroids allowed. So many athletes do them he might have had a lot of support. But no, he was greedy, and just as imagine-conscious, if not moreso, as those who refuse to entertain the idea of allowing performance enhancing drugs in amateur and professional sports.

by Anonymousreply 16601/17/2013

[quote]I don't care if athletes take steroids.

Well I do. And so do the authorities and millions of other people.

[quote]I took steroids once for a medical condition, and I was so crazy by the end of it, well, let's just say that if someone wants to put himself through that torture just to win some game, he deserves to win.

That's irrelevant - not to mention unfair to those competing who aren't taking steroids.

by Anonymousreply 16701/17/2013

I'm vindicated. I never liked him or understood his deification. He rides a fucking bicycle, for Christ's sake. Any kid can do that.

by Anonymousreply 16801/17/2013

He was a hero to cancer survivors. So they are hurt too.

by Anonymousreply 16901/17/2013

He always had a nazi kind of look to me.

by Anonymousreply 17001/17/2013

He sounds like Tammy sans the couch jumping.

by Anonymousreply 17101/17/2013

Let them take steroids, R167.

There's nothing you can do to make this matter to me. You should just give it up.

by Anonymousreply 17201/17/2013

The stupidest sport is race car driving. You use your right foot, you steer with your hands. Okey dokey.

by Anonymousreply 17301/18/2013

r169 - I think a large number of people who consider him some sort of cancer crusader are true believers and this won't affect them. They will always believe Livestrong is a 100% altruistic venture that raised a billion dollars to fight cancer. Facts about the true nature of Livestrong or about how LA used it for enormous personal gain don't affect their perception.

by Anonymousreply 17401/18/2013

For the "steroids" fans (shows just how little you know if you think that's what cycling cheats and other sports dopers are taking), if your idea of allowing athletes to take performance-enhancing drugs is accepted then how do you deal with the fact that different athletes respond differently to the same dosage? It's not like they can all take 5mg of substance x and that will put them all on a "level playing field", as some idiots argue. 5 mg might improve one athlete's performance by 10%, another's by only 2%. Also, if you allow some substances then that doesn't deal with the cheats: the ones who really want to win at all costs will start going further and further into much more dangerous, still banned substances. Unless you think it's ok for athletes to take drugs that could kill them. Plus, those who want to compete just on their skills and hard work and not put crap into their bodies will never be able to win.

Besides, it doesn't matter what a handful of individuals want: you are irrelevant.

by Anonymousreply 17501/18/2013

Further to r175, here's a list of PEDs/techniques LA is accused of using:

- EPO - Blood transfusions (aka “blood doping”) - Testosterone - Human Growth Hormone (hGH) - Corticosteroids (e.g., cortisone) - Saline and plasma infusions

by Anonymousreply 17601/18/2013

R164 / R172 nothing you can say will persuade anyone to allow athletes to use steroids ... or that your opinion matters.

Do you really think this thread is about persuading you? If you can't give it up, maybe you've got more than a drug problem.

by Anonymousreply 17701/18/2013

[quote]Facts about the true nature of Livestrong or about how LA used it for enormous personal gain don't affect their perception.

Are there any articles you would recommend that provide these facts? I'd like to educate myself.

Thanks

by Anonymousreply 17801/18/2013

If what I say and what I think don't matter, R177, then stop responding to me.

by Anonymousreply 17901/18/2013

[quote][R164] / [R172] nothing you can say will persuade anyone to allow athletes to use steroids ... or that your opinion matters.

[quote]Do you really think this thread is about persuading you? If you can't give it up, maybe you've got more than a drug problem.

I think the poster tried the same on another thread - to get everyone to explain why doping is wrong only so that he could say: nope, still don't care.

Just ignore him.

by Anonymousreply 18001/18/2013

Finally, Lance Armstrong has admitted using performance enhancing drugs in his remarkable feat of winning seven Tour de France races before retiring.

He made the admission in an interview with Oprah Winfrey to air Thursday and Friday on her network, whose survival is as threatened as Armstrong’s reputation as a straight shooter.

After a decade-plus of vehemently denying using drugs, Armstrong coming clean hardly undoes the damage he’s done to his reputation and, possibly, to the sport (if one can call the Tour de France a “sport” rather than a tradition).

After surviving the usually fatal testicular cancer, he insisted he would never put foreign substances in his bloodstream that might reintroduce cancer to his system.

That seemed so logical, that to think otherwise defied common sense.

But it was a lie.

What is true about Armstrong’s racing career is that no cyclist — perhaps no athlete in the history of sport — has undergone so many tests for doping (some 500 of them) with no evidence of drug usage.

Now that his usage has been confirmed, the explanation is that his use of drugs was so advanced, so sophisticated, that detection methods never caught up. That sounds suspiciously like a cop-out — of fabricating an explanation after the fact.

Regardless, he is now guilty of using drugs in his races.

Despite hurt feelings of those who believed Armstrong and now feel betrayed, there has never been a cyclist of his talent, stamina, perseverance.

What should be remembered is that the Tour de France and cycling are notorious for doping. Over the years that Armstrong was winning the Tour de France, virtually every cyclist who mounted the podium after the race has tested positive for steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.

A case can be made that one cannot become a world-class cyclist without help from drugs. Those who deny such usage risk falling into the trap Armstrong inadvertently built for himself.

Yes, he’s lost his medals, his record has been expunged, but what cannot be changed or denied is that he was by far the greatest cyclist of his time. Perhaps ever.

In a sport where so many of the good ones were doping, Armstrong was competing on a field that was more or less level. No one was in his category.

We can look at other sports — baseball’s Roger Clemens (another denier), Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, even the Yankee’s A-Rod for a time. They stood out among others who were on the juice.

Ben Johnson — fastest sprinter in the world in 1988 until he was caught using steroids and lost his Olympic gold medal to Carl Lewis.

Where is the justice in that? In fact, there are some who believe that most runners who make the finals in the Olympic 100-metre sprint are on some medication.

But believing something is a far cry from proving it.

It seems that years of denying wore Armstrong down: He cheated.

The stellar work he’s done on behalf of cancer, his raising of awareness of the disease, his inspiring, personal example of fighting cancer and not letting it conquer him, fade with the admission of his deceit.

He’s now something of a pariah. Perhaps deservedly so.

But he’s still the greatest cyclist who ever lived.

That cannot be denied.

by Anonymousreply 18101/18/2013

[quote]Bisexual, right

Yup, and very aggressive.

by Anonymousreply 18201/18/2013

I think he's a pig. Just thinking about all those years of denials with a straight face, all the money he raked in, and all the people that SHOULD have gotten his medals/attention is just disgusting. Cheaters are why the honest, decent people can't get ahead.

by Anonymousreply 18301/18/2013

'But he’s still the greatest cyclist who ever lived.

That cannot be denied.'

Of course it can be denied. It would be ridiculous thing to say about any athlete, that they were the best whoever lived. The fact is we don't even know who the best genuine cyclist of the 'Armstrong era' was, because they were blocked by Armstrong and the druggies. The Brit cyclist Chris Broadman (who did not use drugs, as everyone in the sport agrees) was one who could never achieve his potential in terms of titles, because the drugged up brigade kept him in bronze medal position at best.

by Anonymousreply 18401/18/2013

How can someone who has never won the Tour de France or an Olympic medal or any top tier race be considered "the greatest cyclist who ever lived"? Because that's pretty much what Lance Armstrong's resume now looks like.

by Anonymousreply 18501/18/2013

He's a sociopath, right out of the scenes of "We Need To Talk About Kevin". Not all sociopaths become killers; many become CEOs or athletes.

by Anonymousreply 18601/18/2013

So I have a question: Do the people who ended up 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places in the races with Pigstrong now get the next highest medals since Pigstrong cheated? I think it's only fair.

by Anonymousreply 18701/18/2013

[quote]what cannot be changed or denied is that he was by far the greatest cyclist of his time.

Beyond that, he's by far the greatest sport's cheat of all time.

by Anonymousreply 18801/18/2013

r181 - LA's body responded to PEDs perhaps better than anyone else's. Not sure that's much of an accomplishment.

Also, bitch please with the cancer story. You need to check your facts. LA's cancer charity is all kinds of shady and he used it shamelessly to acquire his personal fortune. Only fools would find that inspirational.

by Anonymousreply 18901/18/2013

Is there a chance he will face any criminal charges for his doping/fuckery or is his fate mostly tied to civil court/damages?

by Anonymousreply 19001/18/2013

[quote]Is there a chance he will face any criminal charges for his doping/fuckery

Nope. The statute of limitations for this stuff, including the perjury is seven years. In what I'm sure is just an astounding coincidence, everything Lance has confessed to happened just over seven years ago.

by Anonymousreply 19101/18/2013

JJ Abrams has bought the rights to the story. It's to be titled Cycle of Lies.

by Anonymousreply 19201/18/2013

[quote]Not all sociopaths become killers; many become CEOs or athletes.

Anyone who has seen INSIDE JOB knows it is true.

by Anonymousreply 19301/18/2013

Who cares. It's just cycling.

by Anonymousreply 19401/18/2013

This story has really angered me.

He's a rat.

by Anonymousreply 19501/18/2013

This wasn't a confession...it was commerce. Oprah gets eyes glued to her failing channel and Lance can start the engines on his Redemption Express tour. The cynicism that constructed this makes me want to shun modern day mass media even more than I already do.

by Anonymousreply 19601/18/2013

I hope they get awarded every penny in court:

[italic]SCA initially refused to pay out money covering the bonus for Armstrong's sixth Tour win in 2004, totalling $5m, because it argued Armstrong was not a clean rider.

Armstrong took the company to an arbitration hearing in Dallas in 2005 and won, because the contract between the parties stipulated the insurance money would be payable if Armstrong was the "official winner" of the Tour.

But, after Armstrong's confession of doping to Oprah Winfrey this week, Tillotson said his client would be looking to recover the money, now assessed at $12m because of legal costs and interest.

"As you can imagine, we paid him $12m for being the official winner of three Tour de France races and swearing under oath he was a clean rider during those races," Tillotson told BBC 5live's BeSpoke programme.

"He's now told us, at least though Oprah, that he lied when he told us he was a clean rider.

"He doped during all those races, and Usada and UCI have stripped him of his official title status. So under those circumstances my client naturally wants his money back.

"We have made a demand for return of the $12m and if that money is not returned to us, my client will pursue litigation.

"He feels Lance Armstrong neither has the legal right, nor frankly the moral right to keep those funds."[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 19701/19/2013

Link to NEW THREADS thread, while DL is "broken".

Paste links to your new threads here so others can find them:

by Anonymousreply 19801/19/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.