• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Let the Armstrong defense begin...

Apr 5, 2010
82
0
0
Visit site
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-willing-to-co-operate-with-doping-investigation

"As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation I will be happy to co-operate but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt,
"

First steps in distancing himself from any responsibility with regards to organizing and the structure of postal and discrediting the investigation that has occurred and shall ensue. Furthermore, seeking the truth about the potentially illegal activities and the way postal was run shall become a "witch hunt".


"It was not my company, I didn't have a position, I didn't have an equity stake, I didn't have a profit stake, I didn't have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can't be any clearer than that,"



The grim reaper is beginning to iron his cloak......
 
As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation I will be happy to co-operate but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt

I was amused to read this. The investigated person who feels he's in charge of defining what is appropriate to investigate. Massive ego and hubris, but props on the excellent use of the bully pulpit.

Consider these the initial talking points for the legions and the defense. How many times will you hear people repeat "Witch Hunt" in the next months? :)
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
I was amused to read this. The investigated person who feels he's in charge of defining what is appropriate to investigate. Massive ego and hubris, but props on the excellent use of the bully pulpit.

Consider these the initial talking points for the legions and the defense. How many times will you hear people repeat "Witch Hunt" in the next months? :)

I don't think it's a matter of hubris, I think it's a matter of building up a justification for not cooperating. It's far easier to stonewall than it is to appear to cooperate without doing it, but stonewalling makes you look very guilty, if he can sell the public on this being a witch-hunt he can stonewall without it amounting to a public confession. I wish him the best of luck with that tactic. :D
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
He appears to try to run from it. That's not going to instill confidence in anyone else involved in his doping. They're now more likely to spill the beans after reading this interview. Bad move by Lance. He's losing it.
 

editedbymod

BANNED
Jul 11, 2010
112
0
0
Visit site
“I can’t speak to what they did themselves,” he said

".....I can’t control what other riders do. I really can’t.”


- He's so on his own.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
Cerberus said:
I don't think it's a matter of hubris, I think it's a matter of building up a justification for not cooperating. It's far easier to stonewall than it is to appear to cooperate without doing it, but stonewalling makes you look very guilty, if he can sell the public on this being a witch-hunt he can stonewall without it amounting to a public confession. I wish him the best of luck with that tactic. :D

I think it is a perfectly justifiable response. At the end of the day 'he who alleges must prove', it is at the foundation of the western justice system. In a criminal setting that proof must meet a very high standard, 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. In the farce that is the American justice system, attaining that standard is quite difficult as we saw with the OJ case and many since.

If I was Armstrong I would be doing exactly what he is doing, why should he do anything differently and I doubt that any poster on here would either if they were in his shoes.
 
Jun 15, 2010
84
0
0
Visit site
Wasn't part of the campaign of returning to cycling "Full Transparency"?

We shall see what happens.

Denial?

Cooperation?

Avoidance?

Sabotage?

Counter Attack?
 
Jun 9, 2009
403
1
0
Visit site
For Lance to state that he was not the owner of the team is a smart move. Novitsky has said that he is going after the "big fish", which means the team owners and the policy makers for the team.

For Lance to say that he was an employee of Tailwind Sports rather than an employee of the US Postal Service is also a smart move. Since US tax dollars fund the postal service, the extent of the crime is more profound. Defrauding the US government and taxpayers is different than being employed by an entity that was defrauding the above named parties.

In the interview, Lance seemed to be trying to make himself a "small fish".

Some of the riders who are likely to be called to testify have been ostracized by the sport to the extent that they have nothing to lose (Hamilton and Landis). Other riders who are still competing have some reason to protect their future interests by maintaining their innocence and the innocence of the sport (Zabriskie and Hincapie).

The probable lack of physical evidence will make the job of the prosecution difficult. In order to achieve a guilty verdict without ample physical evidence there has to be overwhelming consistancy between the depositions of each individual called to testify.

Lance's comments in the interview do make it appear that he is trying to distance himself from the allogations and minimize any role he played in the decision making of the team. They do not sound like comments a person with nothing to hide might make.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
I think it is a perfectly justifiable response. At the end of the day 'he who alleges must prove', it is at the foundation of the western justice system. In a criminal setting that proof must meet a very high standard, 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. In the farce that is the American justice system, attaining that standard is quite difficult as we saw with the OJ case and many since.

If I was Armstrong I would be doing exactly what he is doing, why should he do anything differently and I doubt that any poster on here would either if they were in his shoes.

If by "in his shoes" you mean being guilty as hell then I might very well be doing something similar, that doesn't mean it won't damage his public image.
 
Apr 5, 2010
82
0
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
I think it is a perfectly justifiable response.

If I was Armstrong I would be doing exactly what he is doing, why should he do anything differently and I doubt that any poster on here would either if they were in his shoes.

I would not disagree with you on the above except that I and perhaps you, would not have done what he has done to others in the sport and made the enemies that he has. That is why he's in the situation that he's in, it's not because he was on the ride boosters, since most of us can agree that many others, including those who have not tested positive officially, were using the similar aids.
 
David Suro said:
For Lance to state that he was not the owner of the team is a smart move. Novitsky has said that he is going after the "big fish", which means the team owners and the policy makers for the team.

For Lance to say that he was an employee of Tailwind Sports rather than an employee of the US Postal Service is also a smart move. Since US tax dollars fund the postal service, the extent of the crime is more profound. Defrauding the US government and taxpayers is different than being employed by an entity that was defrauding the above named parties.

In the interview, Lance seemed to be trying to make himself a "small fish".

Some of the riders who are likely to be called to testify have been ostracized by the sport to the extent that they have nothing to lose (Hamilton and Landis). Other riders who are still competing have some reason to protect their future interests by maintaining their innocence and the innocence of the sport (Zabriskie and Hincapie).

The probable lack of physical evidence will make the job of the prosecution difficult. In order to achieve a guilty verdict without ample physical evidence there has to be overwhelming consistancy between the depositions of each individual called to testify.

Lance's comments in the interview do make it appear that he is trying to distance himself from the allogations and minimize any role he played in the decision making of the team. They do not sound like comments a person with nothing to hide might make.

Good luck with that. Problem is, Novitzky isn't going to be asking Lance what the definition is for "big fish" or people he's going after. He'll define that himself, and anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the sport knows that Lance is, was, and by his own creation and definition a big fish.

Good luck with trying to define the investigation from the inside, Lance.
 
SpartacusRox said:
I think it is a perfectly justifiable response. At the end of the day 'he who alleges must prove', it is at the foundation of the western justice system. In a criminal setting that proof must meet a very high standard, 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. In the farce that is the American justice system, attaining that standard is quite difficult as we saw with the OJ case and many since.

If I was Armstrong I would be doing exactly what he is doing, why should he do anything differently and I doubt that any poster on here would either if they were in his shoes.

Most people would never be in his shoes, because most people aren't cheating, conniving bullies neck deep in potentially criminal activity. So yeah, no big surprise that he's trying to stonewall. Woo-hoo.
 
Jun 9, 2009
403
1
0
Visit site
Good points, Red-Flanders. It is definately not going to be an easy time for Lance, Johan, or any of the others involved.

Personally, I am hoping for a quick resolution of the case rather than another Puerto-type investigation where a rider like Valverde is handed his suspension four years after the fact.

I would like them the be found guilty or innocent and have a closed case quickly so we can all go on and read and watch the sport without so much legal drama.

So, Flanders, before you post it again I will go ahead and wish myself "good luck with that".
 
Jun 15, 2009
353
0
0
Visit site
Quote:
"As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation I will be happy to co-operate but I'm not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt,"

I think it's Novitsky, not Lance, who gets to weigh "legitimate and credible and fair" vs. "witch hunt." Further, it's unlikely that Lance's participation in the investigation will be particularly voluntary. It won't be long until he's forced to either cooperate or take steps that will hit him in the PR department (plead 5th, accept contempt of court, etc). I for one am glad that he'll finally have to answer questions before parties that actually carry some weight.

Quote:
"It was not my company, I didn't have a position, I didn't have an equity stake, I didn't have a profit stake, I didn't have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can't be any clearer than that,"

Yet:

In November, 2005, when called to testify as part of an arbitration into his dispute with SCA promotions over a bonus payment for his Tour victories, Armstrong stated under oath that he thought he had a small ownership stake in Tailwind Sports, but he was not sure of the date he acquired it.

So he was certain enough to testify under oath that what he said today is completely untrue.

Stay tuned folks, this might finally be getting interesting . . .
 
May 25, 2010
149
0
0
Visit site
"I’ve done too many good things for too many people."

From the article over at velonews.com about Lance's response.

"But as long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we will be happy to cooperate. But I’m not going to cooperate in any kind of witch hunt. I’ve done too many good things for too many people.”

Playing the big C trump card once again. I think he might actually believe himself when he says stuff like that.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
David Suro said:
For Lance to state that he was not the owner of the team is a smart move. Novitsky has said that he is going after the "big fish", which means the team owners and the policy makers for the team.

not if the other 'big fish' can prove that lance gave the cycling orders and they handled the financial running of tailwind and it was lance who called the shots on the team along with Hog of course.....

LA better be careful not to try and distance himself and blame the 'big fish' as they might just feed on him...
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Visit site
powerste said:
In November, 2005, when called to testify as part of an arbitration into his dispute with SCA promotions over a bonus payment for his Tour victories, Armstrong stated under oath that he thought he had a small ownership stake in Tailwind Sports, but he was not sure of the date he acquired it.

So he was certain enough to testify under oath that what he said today is completely untrue.

Stay tuned folks, this might finally be getting interesting . . .


Back when Lance was a team mate of "Frankie (Andreu), Kevin (Livingston), Tyler (Hamilton) or George (Hincapie)", Lance was not an owner.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Adolf Hitler
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
Not sure I follow. He doesn't know when he became a part owner, but you do?


Lance was NOT an owner early in his Postal days - he was "just a rider".

Lance WAS an owner in the Disco Days and late Postal days.

There is no inconsistency there.
Both true statements.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Adolf Hitler

that only works when people have not seen the cracks.....too late now, too many different stories and sadly he has dropped the 'big simple lie' of 'most tested athlete and never tested positive', it's gone way beyond that now....