Lance offered donation to USADA

[mewmewmew13]

Any hope of a link to the Scott Pelley's show, this early after airing?

I know...it doesn't seem to exist.

 

[ChrisE]

I know...it doesn't seem to exist.

Lance had it deleted from the internets, while simultaneously inflicting the memory kabuki on Saucy. Call it a two-fer to intangle the clinic panties.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Lance had it deleted from the internets, while simultaneously inflicting the memory kabuki on Saucy. Call it a two-fer to intangle the clinic panties.

nice one Chris

Going to be a fun time until Thursday in the clinic

too bad Lance is too busy lately to catch a night out at the Yellow Rose

 

[ChrisE]

nice one Chris

Going to be a fun time until Thursday in the clinic

too bad Lance is too busy lately to catch a night out at the Yellow Rose

What sux is that I will be out of the country. Hopefully I will be able to find it on the internet, that is if LA doesn't have it ****canned.

I doubt if he is at the Yellow Rose. There is a tide of morality sweeping over the state...the topless bar "workers" in Houston are scared ****less because the most famous club Treasures (of Enron lunch fame) is being totally hosed by undercover cops and the morality police protecting my well being. I was in the Mens Club the other day and it was dead and the "workers" were not very aggressive, so like I say it is spreading like the flu. I imagine Austin is infected, plus he needs to save his $. Maybe I will go there and buy him some lap dances.

Back on topic, somebody posted a link about statute of limitations and whether or not he has been working he feds for a deal. I just can't see him admitting anything without that, so what is the point of the interview? Something doesn't smell right, and it's not Treasures.

 

[Merckx index]

So I was right in the other thread (now closed) when I suggested that Saugy could say, in reply to Tygart’s statement about “the keys to the EPO test”, that he was just reassuring LA that he wouldn’t have to worry about false positives:

"I have absolutely no regret. I would repeat it," Saugy told the AP, explaining that Armstrong and other riders at that time had a right to information about false positive results in the relatively new EPO test. "They wanted to know what is the basis of the fight against doping."

Not saying I believe or don’t believe Saugy, but this is certainly what I would expect him to say. Riders do have a right to have information that will reassure them with regard to false positives. And to repeat what I said on that other thread, it’s very unlikely Saugy could have told LA anything about the test that would have helped him beat it. It had already been published by then, I’m sure Ferrari was familiar with it, and the doctor’s main breakthrough was realizing that an IV injection at night would get EPO out of the body before a morning test. Nothing about the EPO test per se would have led anyone to that insight.

My main question for Tygart is simple: the same one I put to UCI.
Why did you do NOTHING for so long when there was a clear problem?
They UCI and USADA including Tygart are jointly guilty of fiddling whilst Rome burned. And then having done nothing for so long why did he not even allow a few days of diplomacy to persuade Armstrong to come clean, he did not even give it a chance. 48 hours to come in on his terms when Armstrong was not even in the country.

The answer to the first part of your question is obvious: because LA had so much power over the peloton that USADA could not get any riders to testify against him until Floyd.

Wrt the second part of your question, where are these documents that show that TT gave LA only a couple of days to respond? Can you provide a link? Tygart spent months interviewing the riders who eventually testified. Are you certain that he waited until he had all of this testimony before he tried to contact LA?

Any hope of a link to the Scott Pelley's show, this early after airing?

It’s not much, but in the Oprah thread I think (?) there was a link to Anderson Cooper’s interview of Betsy and Juliet Macur. In that clip, Cooper shows a (very short) clip of Tygart on 60 m. Not much, but better than nothing.

If LA really is not getting paid for the Oprah interview (and forget the analogies to TDU, Livestrong, etc., where he got paid through another channel, they don't work for me in this situation at all), then I am more and more convinced he will offer a significant confession. I just can't fathom why he would go on national TV and repeat the same old denials, or even a half-hearted confession, if he wasn't getting paid, and a lot. What would be the point?

Legal ramifications aside, he has absolutely nothing at all to gain now by continuing to deny. He hit bottom in public opinion last October. No confession can possibly make him look worse. As I and others have said before, his lawyers may feel that many of the potential lawsuits against him will go nowhere. I think he has already assumed he will have to pay London Times. He may be on the verge of settling with SCA (and in any case, that case hinges on his not being the official winner, not whether he doped). I think Mark makes a good point that a confession doesn't add much to what is already a very substantial body of evidence. Perjury has SOL. And so on.

 

[ustabe]

I am indeed providing balance to the mob view. I do not sit under Tygart's backside to wait for the sun to fall on me - because what comes out is not sun.

There are serious doubts about what he says. Take this today.

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...ndal-martial-saugy-disputes-usada-accusations

Quote Saugy - "I would like to ask him (Tygart), really personally, why did he say that, because personally it was not the case." In short Saugy says that Tygart is lying.

Of course, Saugy has doubts. Walsh, Hamilton, Coyne, et al, have reported evidence that casts doubt on him. Just because ESPN has reported Saugy's doubts doesn't mean they aren't half-baked and tainted by self-interest. It's just news, news because Saugy figures in the case and a reporter happened to be there.

You really should try for a job with Fox News, mr. mountainman. You turn bull**** into talking points with the best of them.

 

[ustabe]

Oh


Lets try to ramp up this smearing and discrediting of Travis and USADA!

We know Lance is going to go full tilt at this on Oprah.

rah rah!

A light just came on. Thank you for that, mewmewmew13.

 

[D-Queued]

A light just came on. Thank you for that, mewmewmew13.

Next thing: they will tell us that Tygart blood doped.

Or, failing that, that we don't know for sure he didn't.

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

So I was right in the other thread (now closed) when I suggested that Saugy could say, in reply to Tygart’s statement about “the keys to the EPO test”, that he was just reassuring LA that he wouldn’t have to worry about false positives:



Not saying I believe or don’t believe Saugy, but this is certainly what I would expect him to say. Riders do have a right to have information that will reassure them with regard to false positives. And to repeat what I said on that other thread, it’s very unlikely Saugy could have told LA anything about the test that would have helped him beat it. It had already been published by then, I’m sure Ferrari was familiar with it, and the doctor’s main breakthrough was realizing that an IV injection at night would get EPO out of the body before a morning test. Nothing about the EPO test per se would have led anyone to that insight.

.

Why not send out a memo to the teams explaining the probablility of false positives? It is just a statistical probability, unlike say clen that can be inadvertantly digested. Why the special meeting with LA and JB?

The only thing we have about this incident is per TH and FL; LA took EPO against the advice of Ferrari during the TdS, came up positive, then he went to meet with Saugy who has confirmed that meeting.

After that, LA produced his most dominant tour IMO while riding AdH for example the same speed as JU in 97, a year in which there are very high odds JU was on EPO, while JU lagged 2 minutes behind in 2001. Hmmmm.

This all looks to be pretty damning evidence to the "LA got keys to the test" crowd. But, I agree with you this is unlikely. LA and JB have enough scientific experience to download to Ferrari to beat the test, from a 30 minute conversation with Saugy? Why didn't Ferrari just meet with them himself? Why was Ferrari acting clueless about how to beat it at the TdS, when LA ignored his advice?

I think more than likely LA had freedom to use PEDs with cover from the UCI for 2001 TdF, while the others were freaking out about the EPO test and were probably mostly clean. I have always been a supporter, and caught much hell in here because of it, that LA won on a level playing field. I take exception to that in 2001, though. Something happened in June 2001, that apprently thwarted a viable (at that time) EPO test's positives for LA from that point on while his competition failed to perform at previous levels. Is one month +- after a short meeting with Saugy by two non-scientists or doctors enough to beat the test? Doubtful.

I do admit that does nothing to explain why JB and LA met with Saugy, when any cover would have been by UCI. I don't recall Saugy ever saying that other teams did the same thing.

 

[red_flanders]

Please stay on topic. If you think someone is trolling, report it. Thanks.

I've edited and deleted some posts.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

This could end up being very big. Will be interesting to watch this play out.

I was happy to see Oprah hang in there and push back a bit on this question.

Lance offered donation to USADA http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/

From the 60 Minutes Sports Program:
Travis Tygart on Lance Armstrong and USADA Donation offer

Last night during part 2 of the Oprah interview:

Oprah: Last Wednesday night Travis Tygart of USADA told "60 Minutes (Sports)" someone offered a donation, which USADA did not accept. He said it was over $150,000. Were you trying to pay off USADA?

Lance: "No, that is not true."

Oprah: That's not true?

Lance: "That is not true. In the 1,000-page reasoned decision that they had issued, there was a lot of stuff in there, everything was in there, why wasn't that in there? Pretty big story. Oprah, it's not true."

Oprah: No-one representing you…

Lance: "Nobody, I had no knowledge of that but I asked around. Nobody, not true."

Oprah: And you are Lance Armstrong and you run your own show so if somebody was going to offer $150,000, you would know about it?

Lance: "I think the claim was $250,000, it was broad number but they narrowed it down. That's a lot of money. I would know."

Oprah: And you're saying that's not true?

Lance: "That's not true."


USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner replied in a statement: "We stand by the facts both in the reasoned decision and in the '60 Minutes' interview.''

from Twitter: David Epstein ‏@SIDavidEpstein
there are quite a few people who can verify the attempted donation to USADA

 

[DominicDecoco]

He rejected offering UCI money. When he lied there he had to lie about this 'donation' as well.

 

[Benotti69]

I hope going on Oprah will be seen as stupid as Comeback2.0 and again add fuel to the train wreck driving it all the way to jail (come on Feds get the finger out) taking down all the major players who stayed in the shadows counting their 30 silver pieces.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I wonder how long it will be before he has his special interview with Oprah to confess about all the things he lied to Oprah about the first time?

 

[Benotti69]

I wonder how long it will be before he has his special interview with Oprah to confess about all the things he lied to Oprah about the first time?

Does she do three strikes?

I suppose if it will boost rating Oprah will do anything.

 

[mountainrman]

So the interview leaves the question.

Whilst you can question Armstrongs reticence to discuss some subjects because of wider legal implications - there is clearly no payback at all in lying about this,

So you are left with wondering where truth lies?

Here is my take.
1/ Tygart was not a first hand witbess of this and would not have taken the call because of his position at the time, so cannot have checked who called.
2/ He is only aware as hearsay and possibly peripheral in the discussion.
3/ The evidence was never strong enough to make the RD - so was only wheeled out as part of a PR war when Tygart expected a reverse attack.
4/ Armstrong denies the payment and says he asked around and could find no explanation- says at that price it would have been him sanctioning if at all
5/ There is absolutely no benefit in denying if true. no legal implication - so why lie in a come clean?

One explanation consistent with both?
A media sting that failed. They wanted to know whether USADA would accept or were accepting bribes to protect armstrong when the heat was on. They did not, so no meeting and no story.
There are plenty of media stings similar in the past in other sports - money for fixing games for example - and for every sting that succeeds there must be a lot that do not. So never see the light of day.

so in this case it may have been a 3rd party who called, who lost interest when USADA would not take the bait.
So both Tygart and Armstrong could be telling the truth as they know it.

 

[Square-pedaller]

One explanation consistent with both?
A media sting that failed. They wanted to know whether USADA would accept bribes to protect armstrong when the heat was on. They did not, so no meeting and no story.
There are plenty of media stings similar in the past in other sports - money for fixing games for example

so in this case it may have been a 3rd party who called.
So both Tygart and Armstrong are telling the truth as they know it.

That's a pretty clever suggestion that I hadn't thought of.

However, the reason that I don't buy it is LA's response on OWII. He asked why, if the bribe had been offered, hadn't it been mentioned in the Reasoned Decision. This isn't the kind of 'justificatory' statement that you would make if you really knew nothing of the matter. Moreover, as I pointed out on another thread, it's the kind of argument that LA uses to support lies "Why would I put drugs in my body when I've had cancer?" - in other words you convince people of your denial by asking them another question (which is actually more or less irrelevant) that they can't answer.

 

[Bicycle tramp]

The truth is that Armstrong knows more of the truth than he has revealed, and less than would pardon him.

 

[mountainrman]

it's the kind of argument that LA uses to support lies .

Except in this case it is not Armstrong who is using this argument - I do not think it has occurred to him.

The reason I think it may well be true is Armstrong has no payback , therefore any obvious motive for denying it, if it were true. He has owned up to the fact of donations to UCI, even if you do not accept the reason why.

As sherlock holmes once said " when you discount the impossible whatever is left, however improbabke is the truth". The 3rd party explanation is t least consistent with all that is being claimed.

 

[Race Radio]

Smart move Lance. Call the guy who holds the key to you ever being able to race again a liar.

There are multiple witnesses to the donation offer. It was not just Travis.

 

[Microchip]

I hope going on Oprah will be seen as stupid as Comeback2.0 and again add fuel to the train wreck driving it all the way to jail ...

When will he learn that "comebacks" are just not a good idea. Had to laugh when Betsy replied on last night's CNN interview that wrt the Oprah interview, "this is not going well".

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Except in this case it is not Armstrong who is using this argument - I do not think it has occurred to him.

Huh? Armstrong's argument that his team did not try to bribe USADA, as stated on Oprah stage 2, was that the bribe wasn't mentioned in the Reason Decision.

That's the same kind of diverting argument as when saying he didnt dope because he wouldn't because of the cancer.

That's the kind of diversion he floats when he's lying.

 

[frenchfry]

Huh? Armstrong's argument that his team did not try to bribe USADA, as stated on Oprah stage 2, was that the bribe wasn't mentioned in the Reason Decision.

That's the same kind of diverting argument as when saying he didnt dope because he wouldn't because of the cancer.

That's the kind of diversion he floats when he's lying.

We don't say "cancer" anymore, we say "disease".

Please try and keep up.

Otherwise you make a good point.

 

[the asian]

EX USADA Chief backs up Travis Tygart.

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...t-solicitation-lance-armstrong-representative

The offer has come from Lance's representatives.

However the Probability that Lance didn't know about it is absolutely zero..

 

[Benotti69]

Looking forward to the egg on the face of Armstrong when Tygart shows the evidence of an offer of a donation.

Bet Oprah is going to be upset with Armstrong when the she and her teams reads all the lies Armstrong pulled on her.

He wont get another go on Oprah. He blew it. He could've made a powerful TV/Hollywood ally with her for the future.