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

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I find it interesting because this to me has the ring of truth as opposed to Tygart's, "I treated everyone the same." What I suspect is the truth is that JV, who had long running contacts with USADA, negotiated a deal or had an understanding with USADA that his riders would suffer virtually no consequences. Hincapie and Leipheimer came aboard later after their grand jury testimony; their lawyers, who had already cut a deal with the Feds, did the same thing with USADA. I cannot see them telling their clients to just go in there, tell all, and hope For the best.

Yes, that is perfectly in line with statements like these:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...n-team-riders-will-be-suspended-by-usada.html

''Garmin-Sharp team boss Jonathan Vaughters delivered a statement to the assembled media at the Tour de France on Thursday morning dismissing claims that any of the team's riders had been served a suspension for their part in the USADA doping investigation centring on Lance Armstrong and his former teams.''

JV had good lawyers it looks like, or did he get a group discount for having the numbers?

And, indeed, we dont know if Armstrong is telling the truth, and, a real journalist should back up that claim with questions directed at Hincapie and Bottle.

If true, was there a real proces or was it just for hanging the capo di capi? It that is so, dont have troubles with that, USADA should have said so.

I think the truth will be somewhere in the middle, it is most of the times.

 

[D-Queued]

...

I find it interesting because this to me has the ring of truth ...

There is a grain of truth in every great lie. Armstrong's true talent is lying.

So, yes, expect him to make up some sort of cockamamie story. In this case, the only truth is that suspensions were handed out albeit some of the lesser intelligent band may have thought, errantly and foolishly, that they could simply walk away with no consequence.

Any time Lance is the source of tales about his own victimization, one is well-advised to strongly consider the source.

End of story.

Dave.

 

[poupou]

I don't know what would have been a soft deal for LLance, but for sure that could never be the same that has been offered to the like of Georges.

 

[D-Queued]

I don't know what would have been a soft deal for LLance, but for sure that could never be the same that has been offered to the like of Georges.

Being the brilliant strategist and independent thinker that he is, George likely would have taken up an offer to accept a straight trade: Lance's suspension for his own.

George: That works out better, right?

Dave.

 

[trevim]

Every guy that is caught doping should ask for the same treatment Hesjedal had. Lay low and come back like it's nothing. Who cares, he's canadian, not a dirty spanish/italian climber, member of Armstrong's or Ulrich Tour teams....

 

[BroDeal]

I don't understand the level of hubris on display when he says the doping program at US Postal was "conservative"

Armstrong never defined terms. If he defines conservative in terms of risk of getting caught then it probably was conservative. He was in a unique position. All he had to do was aim for the Tour, and the handful of Tour domestiques were expected to do the same. He did almost no racing other than what was needed to test his form and knock the rust off. Until 2005, Armstrong had the race in hand and coasted to the finish, none of his domestiques had ever won a Tour stage. The other teams were filled with riders trying to win races all season. Look at Hamilton. He was doping to win LBL, Romandie, the Giro, the Tour, the Vuelta, the Olympics, etc.

 

[sideshadow]

Keith Olberman on the Armstrong interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuLB...ch?v=KuLB5Xi2qFg&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

 

[poupou]

Lance had bought the $1.000.000 race in 1993

In the Corriere Della Serra, Roberto Gaggioli has stated that he had been bought by Lance to help him win that race.
http://www.corriere.it

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-...ong-accuse-d-avoir-achete-une-victoire/424652

 

[86TDFWinner]

Keith Olberman on the Armstrong interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuLB...ch?v=KuLB5Xi2qFg&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

F^&*& Brilliant!! Olberman Rules!!!

 

[Beech Mtn]

I don't know, I can't speak to the winners, and I don't know what was going on in '07 and '08. I don't even know what was going on in '09. The winner of the Tour was on my team and I have no idea. There were two totally separate factions. It was miserable. I only know what our little group within that team was doing or not doing.

Now he only needs to sling a little mud at Baby Schleck to make it look for the groupies (if there are any left) like clean LA was the true '09 Tour winner. He's the real deal, just like LeMond!

Yeah, we all know AC doped. But Mr. Red Hot Positive is doing his damnedest to convince the world it was all so long ago, and he could've won TdFs clean on a level playing field.

Well, it sounds good now, but you still had compounds that were totally undetectable. So unless you get 500 guys to make that decision, or 400 of the 500. And I don't know anyone who did.

And just what had changed by the time of the comeback in 2009? Or even now? We still have compounds that are undetectable.

 

[MarkvW]

Time to cue up that old Chambers Bros song: Time has come today Got to say this is what many have waited for.

I don't think so. Lance is saying he 'believes' everybody knew or should have known about the USPS doping. Lance can't testify to what other people "know" or "knew." He can only testify to facts that may tend to show (to the fact finder) that those people "knew."

It is clear that Lance is trying to keep the deep-pocketed Weasel on the hook (so that Lance might not end up paying all of the USPS judgment), but Lance needs to deliver evidence of something more than his "belief." Lance has to give up statements, conversations, times, dates, and places, etc. We're not seeing ANY of that juicy stuff, and I have to believe it is because Lance doesn't have it.

If Lance had proof of Weasel's knowledge, he'd have spilled it by now. We're approaching a moment-of-truth because Weasel is asking the judge to let him out of the case. There isn't any "secret" evidence out there because Floyd needs to put all the evidence he has in front of the judge (in an attempt to keep Weasel in the case).

Weasel's no dummy.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Keith Olberman on the Armstrong interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuLB...ch?v=KuLB5Xi2qFg&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

Best quote from Olberman: "We enable his delusion"

 

[DirtyWorks]

In the Corriere Della Serra, Roberto Gaggioli has stated that he had been bought by Lance to help him win that race.
http://www.corriere.it

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-...ong-accuse-d-avoir-achete-une-victoire/424652

What a coincidence!

Gaggioli had a reputation as a dealer in the U.S. I was never in that circle, but that was the talk between people more infatuated with the idea of being pro cyclists a long time ago.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

What a coincidence!

Gaggioli had a reputation as a dealer in the U.S. I was never in that circle, but that was the talk between people more infatuated with the idea of being pro cyclists a long time ago.

I remember seeing his girlfriend at the time (2000ish) come from nowhere and crush the Saturn women's team (who were questionable in their own right) single-handed. Sort of like Jeannson...

 

[zlev11]

i think it's actually quite refreshing that Armstrong admits he would still decide to use EPO in '95. would Olbermann rather he lie and say "oh no, i'd totally not do it and i'd just retire right there and go work at Wal-Mart"? would he rather a BS admission that we got from the likes of A-Rod and Ryan Braun, about how so sorry they were and how it was a mistake they'll never make again?

i'm usually a fan of Olbermann but he's also being quite delusional, acting like he has no idea that all of the sports he makes money covering are just as much of a cesspool of doping as Cycling is/was. i wonder how many NFL players are faced with the exact same decision now that cyclists were in the EPO era? it's a joke. everything is a joke.

that said, Olbermann is pretty spot on with the rest of the video after that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

In the Corriere Della Serra, Roberto Gaggioli has stated that he had been bought by Lance to help him win that race.
http://www.corriere.it

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-...ong-accuse-d-avoir-achete-une-victoire/424652

Worth running through the translator:
http://www.corriere.it/sport/13_dic...ni-58a932f4-63f7-11e3-aa0f-2ef156041c19.shtml

Armstrong bought EVERYBODY. The guy was fixing races and doping. Which tells you that race fixing is still alive and well.

He learned the hard lesson that those big payouts are made over time at a substantial discount to the top line number.

What a headache THAT turned into!

 

[DirtyWorks]

If Lance had proof of Weasel's knowledge, he'd have spilled it by now. We're approaching a moment-of-truth because Weasel is asking the judge to let him out of the case. There isn't any "secret" evidence out there because Floyd needs to put all the evidence he has in front of the judge (in an attempt to keep Weasel in the case).

Weasel's no dummy.

We know from Hamilton's stories that Wiesel was a **very** hands-on guy with his teams by this time. We know it from Landis too. We also know Wiesel has a creepy mancrush on Wonderboy. But, I don't know if it's sufficient for judicial/law enforcement action.

Wonderboy has stories to tell. If they can make it out of his mouth with some proximity to what actually happened and can be corroborated without implicating him in some other crimes, then Wiesel can be implicated. That's a big ask though.

Wiesel is a corruption genius and has incredibly deep pockets to legislate his way out of any trouble he may experience. Still hoping for the best, and glad to see him finally implicated.

 

[MarkvW]

We know from Hamilton's stories that Wiesel was a **very** hands-on guy with his teams by this time. We know it from Landis too. We also know Wiesel has a creepy mancrush on Wonderboy. But, I don't know if it's sufficient for judicial/law enforcement action.

Wonderboy has stories to tell. If they can make it out of his mouth with some proximity to what actually happened and can be corroborated without implicating him in some other crimes, then Wiesel can be implicated. That's a big ask though.

Wiesel is a corruption genius and has incredibly deep pockets to legislate his way out of any trouble he may experience. Still hoping for the best, and glad to see him finally implicated.

Wishful thinking. If it doesn't happen now, it is not going to happen. And it doesn't look like it's going to happen now.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Sweet. With the Gaggioli report, we know now that Lance was not only a cheat and a liar, but he's a fake too.

 

[roundabout]

Armstrong is a fake but he only played the whole huge payoff think to the logical conclusion

 

[skidmark]

Yes, that is perfectly in line with statements like these:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...n-team-riders-will-be-suspended-by-usada.html

''Garmin-Sharp team boss Jonathan Vaughters delivered a statement to the assembled media at the Tour de France on Thursday morning dismissing claims that any of the team's riders had been served a suspension for their part in the USADA doping investigation centring on Lance Armstrong and his former teams.''

JV had good lawyers it looks like, or did he get a group discount for having the numbers?

And, indeed, we dont know if Armstrong is telling the truth, and, a real journalist should back up that claim with questions directed at Hincapie and Bottle.

If true, was there a real proces or was it just for hanging the capo di capi? It that is so, dont have troubles with that, USADA should have said so.

I think the truth will be somewhere in the middle, it is most of the times.

Hmm, applying this to the whole Hesjedal situation that happened when Rasmussen's book came out, the pieces start coming together. If all Garmin riders testified under the 'don't worry, I've worked something out with USADA where you don't get suspended' from Vaughters, but then Hincapie and Levi started talking to them and USADA had to scramble to avoid appearing that biased, it would explain a) why riders (ryders?) whose testimony was peripheral were excluded from the reasoned decision (ie. so that USADA only suspended the necessary riders that provided central info, when they may have promised amnesty to more), and b) why it would be in USADA's interest and those riders' interest to be vague about admissions within the Statute of Limitations (ie. because they should have gotten suspended but didn't). This would give Vaughters/Hesjedal the double benefit of not being punished/scrutinized for an interview that is not on public record anywhere, but also having the 'well he already talked to the feds last year' excuse to avoid scrutiny in the first place.

It doesn't seem that farfetched to think that Hesjedal did tell the whole truth to USADA, but with the understanding that he wouldn't be suspended, so that when things came out this year, we were left with this situation where Hesjedal was avoiding details, Vaughters was being dismissive, and those of us who are fans that are familiar enough with the situation to connect the dots were left scratching our heads as to not only why, but how someone as seemingly guileless as Hesjedal could either have a) lied to the feds and Vaughters or b) not have doped after 2005. That he did dope after 2005, but wasn't punished for it, and that everyone's trying to cover their tracks in retrospect, makes more sense, to be honest.

I like lots of things about Vaughters' approach to doping, I think it's miles more progressive than most people involved with top levels of cycling, but he's always been less 'the truth will set you free' than 'don't tell the truth unless it's certain that you'll get off free'.

 

[MarkvW]

Hmm, applying this to the whole Hesjedal situation that happened when Rasmussen's book came out, the pieces start coming together. If all Garmin riders testified under the 'don't worry, I've worked something out with USADA where you don't get suspended' from Vaughters, but then Hincapie and Levi started talking to them and USADA had to scramble to avoid appearing that biased, it would explain a) why riders (ryders?) whose testimony was peripheral were excluded from the reasoned decision (ie. so that USADA only suspended the necessary riders that provided central info, when they may have promised amnesty to more), and b) why it would be in USADA's interest and those riders' interest to be vague about admissions within the Statute of Limitations (ie. because they should have gotten suspended but didn't). This would give Vaughters/Hesjedal the double benefit of not being punished/scrutinized for an interview that is not on public record anywhere, but also having the 'well he already talked to the feds last year' excuse to avoid scrutiny in the first place.

It doesn't seem that farfetched to think that Hesjedal did tell the whole truth to USADA, but with the understanding that he wouldn't be suspended, so that when things came out this year, we were left with this situation where Hesjedal was avoiding details, Vaughters was being dismissive, and those of us who are fans that are familiar enough with the situation to connect the dots were left scratching our heads as to not only why, but how someone as seemingly guileless as Hesjedal could either have a) lied to the feds and Vaughters or b) not have doped after 2005. That he did dope after 2005, but wasn't punished for it, and that everyone's trying to cover their tracks in retrospect, makes more sense, to be honest.

I like lots of things about Vaughters' approach to doping, I think it's miles more progressive than most people involved with top levels of cycling, but he's always been less 'the truth will set you free' than 'don't tell the truth unless it's certain that you'll get off free'.

Maybe . . .

We need to see Johan's reasoned decision, though.

 

[Merckx index]

I We're approaching a moment-of-truth because Weasel is asking the judge to let him out of the case. There isn't any "secret" evidence out there because Floyd needs to put all the evidence he has in front of the judge (in an attempt to keep Weasel in the case).

Weasel's no dummy.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1151684&highlight=Weisel#post1151684

Emma's testimony is particularly damaging.

 

[MarkvW]

Yes it is. Has anybody seen Floyd's response to Weasel's motion?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I like lots of things about Vaughters' approach to doping, I think it's miles more progressive than most people involved with top levels of cycling, but he's always been less 'the truth will set you free' than 'don't tell the truth unless it's certain that you'll get off free'.

I think that's a fair assessment...