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

Page 449 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Granville57 said:
mrhender said:
http://www.cyclingquotes.com/news/cookson_a_reduced_ban_for_armstrong_is_possible/

One of the riders who were heard by CIRC is Lance Armstrong. He hopes to get a reduced sentence for his cooperation.

"I think that every system should provide the possibility of rehabilitation. Also for Lance Armstrong.

"If he can give us valuable information about cycling in that era, then a reduced sentence must be a possibility. However, the final responsibility is in the hands of the US Anti-Doping Agency USADA. If they don't agree, it will remain unchanged."

Maybe Lance should've taken a different approach than swearing at Tygart during the meeting recounted by Juliet Macur. For sure, Lance could've avoided a lifetime ban when he had the chance. But he chose otherwise.

So fuck him.

Creative coloring!

Yup. It isn't like there isn't a possibility of a reduced sentence. Even real criminals have the opportunity to reform.

But, good behavior in this case is beyond wishful thinking.

It is very clear that there is no possibility of Lance's rehabilitation. In fact, just as he has no sense of the harm inflicted on others, he clearly has zero willingness to accept the consequences of his actions.

And it is his unwillingness that fuels any speculation about reduced ban, rather than any redeemable act.

Dave.
 
Aug 7, 2010
404
0
0
mewmewmew13 said:
there must be a great photoshop idea in this somewhere..:D


1474484_10202386243958148_1750123337_n.jpg


ARMSTONG TRAINING FOR MARIBONG SERIES
After logging a DNF in a disappointing first encounter with the “Beer Mile,” disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has now set his sights on the about to be launched “Maribong Series,” a trio of 26.2 mile marathon running races scheduled for 2015 in Seattle, Washington; Boulder, Colorado and Humboldt County, California. These events differ from traditional marathons in that at each mile marker participants must stop momentarily to smoke a “bowl” of locally-produced marijuana through a type of water-filled smoking pipe commonly referred to as a “bong.”

In an interview with High Times Magazine Armstrong opined that lung-capacity and tolerance for THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) will be key to success in these events. He also mentioned that he has begun a strictly regimented training schedule to prepare himself for the upcoming season and even revealed his planned strategy he’ll use in these contests, “As with any race it’s all about motivation and focus,” he said, “So at the finish I’ll have one of my people waiting for me with a tray of fresh out-of-the-oven chocolate-chip & macadamia cookies.” When asked if revealing this strategy might negate any advantage it would provide over his competitors Armstrong rolled his eyes and said, “What, like they’ll remember?”

chocolate-chip-cookies.jpg
 
Granville57 said:
Maybe Lance should've taken a different approach than swearing at Tygart during the meeting recounted by Juliet Macur. For sure, Lance could've avoided a lifetime ban when he had the chance. But he chose otherwise.

So fuck him.

Granville57, why do you hate champions?

Doesn't everyone get to operate their personal lives on a scorched earth policy, then cry about being a victim when the scorched earth policy fails? "Ohh, It is so unfair I'm being singled out."

The worst part about it are the faithful who defend the nonsense.
 
Fausto's Schnauzer said:
1474484_10202386243958148_1750123337_n.jpg


ARMSTONG TRAINING FOR MARIBONG SERIES
After logging a DNF in a disappointing first encounter with the “Beer Mile,” disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has now set his sights on the about to be launched “Maribong Series,” a trio of 26.2 mile marathon running races scheduled for 2015 in Seattle, Washington; Boulder, Colorado and Humboldt County, California. These events differ from traditional marathons in that at each mile marker participants must stop momentarily to smoke a “bowl” of locally-produced marijuana through a type of water-filled smoking pipe commonly referred to as a “bong.”

In an interview with High Times Magazine Armstrong opined that lung-capacity and tolerance for THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) will be key to success in these events. He also mentioned that he has begun a strictly regimented training schedule to prepare himself for the upcoming season and even revealed his planned strategy he’ll use in these contests, “As with any race it’s all about motivation and focus,” he said, “So at the finish I’ll have one of my people waiting for me with a tray of fresh out-of-the-oven chocolate-chip & macadamia cookies.” When asked if revealing this strategy might negate any advantage it would provide over his competitors Armstrong rolled his eyes and said, “What, like they’ll remember?”

chocolate-chip-cookies.jpg
so perfect :D
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
And this...
Once we realised – this was when we arrived in Europe and got our asses kicked – that we had brought knives to a gun-fight, we all went out and got guns. So virtually everybody in the business made that decision.

This is one of the points that I love the most. We've been told repeatedly by these guys that they were getting their doors blown in, that they just couldn't keep up. Sprinters were out climbing climbers, etc. The USADA transcripts are filled with such claims.

But now Lance (as he stated on Oprah), George, CVV and others would have us believe that they really didn't take "that much." Or in some cases, we now hear the doping either didn't do that much for them, or it somehow actually made them worse.

So which is it?
Doping was the only means necessary to even keep up with the field or...

They were stupid and lazy, and had they just trained harder and smarter (like 2007 onward) they never would've needed to dope in the first place.

George is even quoted telling another rider that "you don't need to take very much," meaning that even small of amounts of properly applied PEDs could cause significant improvements. So why are they allowed to getaway with this new found argument that somehow the amount of PEDs, taken or not taken, diminishes their actions? If only a little goes a long way, why should it matter if they only took a little?

Again...
"We realized that we had brought knives to a gun fight."

So then they went out and got guns. By now they claim, "Oh, but not very big guns. Only small guns." :rolleyes:
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
More Wheaties talk...

“We all jumped in. And with that, the sport, the whole industry, the media, all went like this. Up! My foundation raised half a billion dollars, serving three million people. And then, as we all know, a handful of people got rolled. By me. Because I was so aggressive. Not good. I’m admitting that.

“But let’s talk about the three million who got our help. The billions of dollars that the industry saw coming into their accounts. Increased participation around the world. So you are asking me, if we all want to go back and make a different decision?”

In other words: The end always justifies the means. :)


Only a weak loser would feel differently about it. :rolleyes:



http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/11/rocacorba-daily-364/
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Granville57 said:
In other words: The end always justifies the means. :)

That quote does not make any sense. How does Livestrong being able to throw some really cool parties have anything to do with steamrolling people?

Many would say that the federal investigation was the best thing to ever happen the foundation. They had wasted hundreds of millions of $$$. Being audited forced them to clean up their act.
 
Granville57 said:
"We realized that we had brought knives to a gun fight."

So then they went out and got guns. By now they claim, "Oh, but not very big guns. Only small guns." :rolleyes:

They are trying the old tactic of retelling a lie until it becomes true.

My favorite is fabricating the numbers of people "helped" as it relates to cancer. As soon as one asks the question, "show me how you got that number." All of a sudden it's not a talking point.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
DirtyWorks said:
They are trying the old tactic of retelling a lie until it becomes true.

My favorite is fabricating the numbers of people "helped" as it relates to cancer. As soon as one asks the question, "show me how you got that number." All of a sudden it's not a talking point.

It's the same with the "I've been tested 587 times";) nonsense they spewed for years. If they tell it long enough, people will believe it, just like this.

Wonderboy wants to rewrite history HIS way.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
Source? (This should be funny)

The link was the source.

The changing testimony between SCA and USADA is interesting. Why am I not surprised Vaughters is at it.

It's interesting and although USADA got their man I'm not sure the process to get there was 100% legit.

Jonathan Vaughters
Paragraph three of Vaughters’ affidavit to USADA directly contradicts testimony that he provided under oath in the SCA case
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
On this part:
First, all of the key witnesses in this case only swore under oath AFTER they knew that Armstrong was not contesting the USADA allegations (a decision announced on August 24, 2012

Are those dates supposed to correspond with the signed affidavits that were realeased with The Reason Decision? Because I'm pretty sure the date on Frankie's is wrong (and I haven't the time to check the others).

I also haven't the time to dig up the links at the moment, but those sworn statements, as I understand it, were nothing more than a summary of PREVIOUS testimony (the dates of which I'm not sure were ever published).

USADA had collected evidence over a period of time, but it all came together very quickly once the Fed case was dropped. My interpretation of events was that once it was Go Time, they assembled their Reasoned Decision, and those signed affidavits were only part of that final push to the line, not the actual dates of confessions, etc.

More along the lines of, "OK, we're ready to go, can you sign your name to a brief summary of what you previously told us? We need this now because we're going public with the whole thing."

I'll gladly dig up the links later today. Someone with more time will have to dig up the interviews with William Bock, the General Counsel for USADA where he lays out the timeline, etc.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
Source? (This should be funny)

The source is Tim Herman. After the Reasoned Decision the smoke machine cranked out some rather comical nonsense. For entertainment purposes it is fun to see it again.