• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 123 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Oh my, he is still playing the "I was never offered a chance to co-operate" card. He really is trying to change the narrative and history with this blather.
 
gooner said:
Oh my, he is still playing the "I was never offered a chance to co-operate" card. He really is trying to change the narrative and history with this blather.

To Velonews credit, they noted that Usada tried to meet with Lance on numerous occasions, and they included a link to a letter from Bock to Herman.
 
gooner said:
Oh my, he is still playing the "I was never offered a chance to co-operate" card. He really is trying to change the narrative and history with this blather.

He was too busy attempting to destroy USADA by throwing money and Livestrong donations at lawyers and lobbyists.

If anyone really thinks he is going to transform into a human being, the wait is going to be long.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
gooner said:
Oh my, he is still playing the "I was never offered a chance to co-operate" card. He really is trying to change the narrative and history with this blather.

What he was getting at is that he was never given the same deal as the others for his cooperation, so in his mind why cooperate with punishment being unknown? Whether he would have talked under any circumstance is of course unknown. I doubt it, unless perhaps all the evidence was exposed to him but who knows with his idiocy in dealing with this whole thing.

Tygart says in the VN interview that other teams and owners were involved with doping, and in the CN interview he implies McQuaid has something to hide. He goes on to say USPS was still the most sophisticated program. How he can say this, knowing there is much more, is beyond me. It is ludicrous to think that LA was the only one getting preferential treatment, as some of us have been saying all along to the angst of the CW in here.

BTW, good interview by CN. The funniest part is Tygart being called on speculating about McQuaid but won't shoot down speculation about Horner. Ouch.
 
ChrisE said:
What he was getting at is that he was never given the same deal as the others for his cooperation, so in his mind why cooperate with punishment being unknown? Whether he would have talked under any circumstance is of course unknown. I doubt it, unless perhaps all the evidence was exposed to him but who knows with his idiocy in dealing with this whole thing.

Tygart says in the VN interview that other teams and owners were involved with doping, and in the CN interview he implies McQuaid has something to hide. He goes on to say USPS was still the most sophisticated program. How he can say this, knowing there is much more, is beyond me. It is ludicrous to think that LA was the only one getting preferential treatment, as some of us have been saying all along to the angst of the CW in here.

BTW, good interview by CN. The funniest part is Tygart being called on speculating about McQuaid but won't shoot down speculation about Horner. Ouch.

Of course, you have to look at that from Lance's point of view.

The deal he was expecting was that he would get to provide evidence on somebody else's doping and little or nothing about his own.

'cuz all the choads dope... "they are all doing it".

Dave.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
Of course, you have to look at that from Lance's point of view.

The deal he was expecting was that he would get to provide evidence on somebody else's doping and little or nothing about his own.

'cuz all the choads dope... "they are all doing it".

Dave.

You have no way of knowing that, of course. Besides, that makes no sense. Give me a deal so I will come in and spill on others??? What was his liability in that scenario? And in June 2012. :rolleyes:

In context of the VN interview, he speaks about others being offered deals which include deferred or shortened sentences with the implication being he was not offered the same thing. Do you have evidence contrary to that?
 
ChrisE said:
You have no way of knowing that, of course. Besides, that makes no sense. Give me a deal so I will come in and spill on others??? What was his liability in that scenario? And in June 2012. :rolleyes:

In context of the VN interview, he speaks about others being offered deals which include deferred or shortened sentences with the implication being he was not offered the same thing. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

Do you have evidence supporting it? Sorry for not taking Armstrong at his word.

I would like to know what he was offered. Whatever Armstrong says it was is sure to be as far from the truth as could be.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
Do you have evidence supporting it? Sorry for not taking Armstrong at his word.

I would like to know what he was offered. Whatever Armstrong says it was is sure to be as far from the truth as could be.

All I know is the letter linked in the VN article offers no such thing.

I originally replied to gooner upthread who took what LA said out of context. It is obvious LA was talking about cooperation under a deal of reduced sanctions, since he starts off his answer in the interview alluding to that. I qualified my response by saying I do not know if he would have done it anyway. I kinda doubt it unless as I wrote he was given then full evidence and he came to his senses.

Dave made an accusation, not supported in the interview or with the link to the letter. Maybe you or him will back it up with a link since that is the requirement around here now. My link of no deal for cooperation, which is LA's accusation, is the letter in the VN article. Your turn.
 
ChrisE said:
You have no way of knowing that, of course. Besides, that makes no sense. Give me a deal so I will come in and spill on others??? What was his liability in that scenario? And in June 2012. :rolleyes:

In context of the VN interview, he speaks about others being offered deals which include deferred or shortened sentences with the implication being he was not offered the same thing. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

While I could have included a smilie :rolleyes:, some things can be regarded as self-evident.

So, yes, I know that the sun will rise in the East. I know that gravity exists.

I also know that Lance will continue to lie, evade and blame others. He will lie about lying and he will openly assert that he didn't do anything wrong even as he suggests that he is coming clean.

Thus, if Lance is spinning the story about a 'deal' you MUST consider his context and interpretation. You make a grave mistake if you believe that he is referring to the 'same deal' as anyone else. He isn't, because in his mind he isn't equivalent to anyone else.

Dave.
 
Isn't the point that he was never offered a deal before the reasoned decision came out because he refused to speak to USADA before hand? I thought it was only after he'd been sanctioned and admitted on Oprah that he sat down to talk with them, expecting to get a reduced one year sentence. . .
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
What he was getting at is that he was never given the same deal as the others for his cooperation, so in his mind why cooperate with punishment being unknown? Whether he would have talked under any circumstance is of course unknown. I doubt it, unless perhaps all the evidence was exposed to him but who knows with his idiocy in dealing with this whole thing.

Tygart says in the VN interview that other teams and owners were involved with doping, and in the CN interview he implies McQuaid has something to hide. He goes on to say USPS was still the most sophisticated program. How he can say this, knowing there is much more, is beyond me. It is ludicrous to think that LA was the only one getting preferential treatment, as some of us have been saying all along to the angst of the CW in here.

BTW, good interview by CN. The funniest part is Tygart being called on speculating about McQuaid but won't shoot down speculation about Horner. Ouch.

From the Oprah interview.

"They gathered all of the evidence and they came to me and said what are you going to do? Going back I'd say 'give me three days. Let me call my family, my mother, sponsors, foundation' and I wish I could do that but I can't."

He had his chance and blew it. He knows this too.
 
ChrisE said:
All I know is the letter linked in the VN article offers no such thing.

I originally replied to gooner upthread who took what LA said out of context. It is obvious LA was talking about cooperation under a deal of reduced sanctions, since he starts off his answer in the interview alluding to that. I qualified my response by saying I do not know if he would have done it anyway. I kinda doubt it unless as I wrote he was given then full evidence and he came to his senses.

Dave made an accusation, not supported in the interview or with the link to the letter. Maybe you or him will back it up with a link since that is the requirement around here now. My link of no deal for cooperation, which is LA's accusation, is the letter in the VN article. Your turn.

You want me to provide a link for a question I asked?
 
D-Queued said:
While I could have included a smilie :rolleyes:, some things can be regarded as self-evident.

So, yes, I know that the sun will rise in the East. I know that gravity exists.

I also know that Lance will continue to lie, evade and blame others. He will lie about lying and he will openly assert that he didn't do anything wrong even as he suggests that he is coming clean.

Thus, if Lance is spinning the story about a 'deal' you MUST consider his context and interpretation. You make a grave mistake if you believe that he is referring to the 'same deal' as anyone else. He isn't, because in his mind he isn't equivalent to anyone else.

Dave.

This is one thing that the diehard fans seem to have difficulty grasping. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
You want me to provide a link for a question I asked?

You asked me for evidence that he wasn't offered the same deal in reduction of sanctions the others were given. I stated the letter linked in the VN article says nothing about a reduction in sanctions for cooperation; it just says 'come in and cooperate'. I am also unaware of any other evidence that says "if you cooperate, this is the deal".

Your question for me was after and in reaction to my question to Dave to back up his assertions that LA wanted a 'deal' to squeal on others which is ludicrous (and he is spinning out of). He can't provide that evidence, obviously.

All of this is in black and white in this thread, in English. So, help me out here on where we are losing eachother. I feel a little like I am on that spinning barrel vomit ride they had at Astroworld when I was growing up.
 
ChrisE said:
You asked me for evidence that he wasn't offered the same deal in reduction of sanctions the others were given. I stated the letter linked in the VN article says nothing about a reduction in sanctions for cooperation; it just says 'come in and cooperate'. I am also unaware of any other evidence that says "if you cooperate, this is the deal".

Your question for me was after and in reaction to my question to Dave to back up his assertions that LA wanted a 'deal' to squeal on others which is ludicrous (and he is spinning out of). He can't provide that evidence, obviously.

All of this is in black and white in this thread, in English. So, help me out here on where we are losing eachother. I feel a little like I am on that spinning barrel vomit ride they had at Astroworld when I was growing up.

It was just a straightforward question, no hidden meaning. I just don't believe Armstrong when he's talking about something that could damage him. All spin, all the time.

No problem if you don't. Wasn't meant as a challenge though I completely get why you might have taken it that way.

I would just really like to know what in fact he was offered and when. But I really don't care much. History now. I'm ashamed I even posted on this thread, actually...
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
gooner said:
From the Oprah interview.



He had his chance and blew it. He knows this too.

No dispute, but not relevant to the discussion.

Him looking at his position now or in January 2013 when that interview took place, and saying "gee, I wish I would have done it differently" proves that he was offered a deal in reduction in sanctions in June of 2012 for talking???

Him saying on Oprah that they showed him all the evidence is not backed up by facts in the public domain, unless you want to show me where I missed that. I think he was just babbling in that disaster of an interview, which I am on record here as calling him a dumbass for doing.

Nobody is disputing that USADA asked him to come in and 'cooperate'. He is not disputing that. He is noting the terms of that cooperation, and how it contrasted to what the others got.

I know you are not American (with your perceptive posts in the politics thread, which I enjoyed reading), so I understand the American position on rights of the accused vs Europe for example may cause a different mindset here. I have had this discussion many times before on cycling forums.

I do not find it incredulous or asinine that somebody would reject coming in and spilling their guts in an adversarial situation without certain guarantees. Of course alternatively he was never going to fight it because the truth would come out, but that is not the point.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
It was just a straightforward question, no hidden meaning. I just don't believe Armstrong when he's talking about something that could damage him. All spin, all the time.

No problem if you don't. Wasn't meant as a challenge though I completely get why you might have taken it that way.

I would just really like to know what in fact he was offered and when. But I really don't care much. History now. I'm ashamed I even posted on this thread, actually...

I took it no way. Again, I am just talking about what he said in the VN interview, in its context, and providing you with what you asked while asking the same in return.

No doubt he lies about a lot of things, and I admitted upthread that even if they did enlighten him or offer him a deal I doubted he would have taken it at the time with his mindset. He can look back 20/20 all he wants on Oprah but hindsight is all it is.

I found the June 8 letter to USADA online earlier. I cannot believe somebody who claims to be a professional would write something so inflammatory, disrespectful, and adversarial. The fact he pays those lawyers as much as he did/does and they produce some garbage like that while making many times more than the common man is pathetic.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577465021326477022

The tone of that letter extrapolated over his career is an illustration of why he is in the position he is in. He has gotten bad advice, poor representation, and mixed in with his hubris he has only the mirror to blame.

I too would like to know if he was offered a deal but it doesn't appear to be that way. Like you say, it doesn't matter now.
 
ChrisE said:
You asked me for evidence that he wasn't offered the same deal in reduction of sanctions the others were given. I stated the letter linked in the VN article says nothing about a reduction in sanctions for cooperation; it just says 'come in and cooperate'. I am also unaware of any other evidence that says "if you cooperate, this is the deal".

Your question for me was after and in reaction to my question to Dave to back up his assertions that LA wanted a 'deal' to squeal on others which is ludicrous (and he is spinning out of). He can't provide that evidence, obviously.

All of this is in black and white in this thread, in English. So, help me out here on where we are losing eachother. I feel a little like I am on that spinning barrel vomit ride they had at Astroworld when I was growing up.

My comment was offered half-jest, but based upon the obvious to underscore that LANCE DOESN'T THINK LIKE THE REST OF US.

I am neither shrinking away from my comment nor attempting to spin out of it.

Paraphrasing Ullrich, if you cannot grasp the obvious - be it my comment, it's intent or Lance's behavioral patterns - I cannot help you.

And, for the record, that is NOT an ad hominem.

Dave.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
My comment was offered half-jest, but based upon the obvious to underscore that LANCE DOESN'T THINK LIKE THE REST OF US.

I am neither shrinking away from my comment nor attempting to spin out of it.

Paraphrasing Ullrich, if you cannot grasp the obvious - be it my comment, it's intent or Lance's behavioral patterns - I cannot help you.

And, for the record, that is NOT an ad hominem.

Dave.

Whatever. I am in no mood to argue with you and your posts that require interpretation between the lines.

I read the other day that our old buddy Bill Hue is in the middle of the Kimmage fund. I guess that is a step up from being a shill for FFF.