• 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!

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

Page 511 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

StyrbjornSterki said:
A couple of weeks ago I read a quote from His Pharmstrongness saying 'I've suffered enough already.' To which I replied, "Not your call, min skat."

Government wants Lance Armstrong's medical records for whistleblower case
AP 4:33 p.m. EDT August 5, 2015

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The federal government wants to see Lance Armstrong's medical records from his treatments for cancer, specifically whether his doctors knew back in 1996 that he was using performance-enhancing drugs.

...

You clipped this part:

...The demand for medical records came in a late flurry of government subpoenas for documents and depositions as the case nears the end of the evidence-gathering phase. The government also issued subpoenas last week for testimony from Armstrong's former sponsors Nike Inc., Trek Bicycle Corp., Giro Sport Design and Discovery Communications Inc., which took over sponsorship of Armstrong's team in 2005. ...

But that appears interesting for a number of reasons.

1. The list does not include Oakley. Does that mean that Stephanie, in an apparently new deposition, has finally come clean?

The Stephanie switching testimony angle is interesting enough, of course, all by itself.

2. Isn't this a damned if you do, and damned if you don't position for Disco?

If they admit knowing about the doping, then they support Lance's defense that 'everyone knew'. Yet, don't they run the danger of potentially placing themselves into a complicity position vis-a-vis a cover-up? Thus, if they admit they knew, couldn't Disco then be added to those being sought for damages?

Alternately, if they claim you didn't know, then they undermine Lance's defense argument. That is not necessarily in their best interests either. If Lance were to submit evidence of awareness and/or if any of the other sponsors were to be honest about their awareness in a deposition, for example, then they could have perjury and other issues to be concerned about.

Dave.
 
Re:

MarkvW said:
Apparently August 14 is the next big SCA date. This is when SCA asks a court to turn the arbitration award into a judgment. Guaranteed appeal no matter who wins.


But first, read this nugget of hilarity from Wonderboy. He's such a narcissistic, delusional good liar, he doesn't even realize he's doing it anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/08/06/lance-armstrong-testimony-federal-lawsuit/31231153/
Chandler also asked Armstrong about sponsors using his story to sell products – a story that was based on his false reputation as a clean rider.

“Nike does a very good job of using every athlete’s story,” Armstrong said.

“Did other sponsors want to use your story?” Chandler asked.

“Yeah. Trek did, Nike did. Giro did. Oakley did,” Armstrong replied.


“Did the Postal Service?” asked Chandler.

“Objection,” Peters said. “Lacks foundation.”

“Yeah, they did,” Armstrong answered
.

LOL! Who is "Peters", a new lawyer? Did Wonderboy fire his team of lawyers again?
 
He is looking old these days:

646x_13197743.jpg
 
Re: Re:

86TDFWinner said:
MarkvW said:
Apparently August 14 is the next big SCA date. This is when SCA asks a court to turn the arbitration award into a judgment. Guaranteed appeal no matter who wins.


But first, read this nugget of hilarity from Wonderboy. He's such a narcissistic, delusional good liar, he doesn't even realize he's doing it anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/08/06/lance-armstrong-testimony-federal-lawsuit/31231153/
Chandler also asked Armstrong about sponsors using his story to sell products – a story that was based on his false reputation as a clean rider.

“Nike does a very good job of using every athlete’s story,” Armstrong said.

“Did other sponsors want to use your story?” Chandler asked.

“Yeah. Trek did, Nike did. Giro did. Oakley did,” Armstrong replied.


“Did the Postal Service?” asked Chandler.

“Objection,” Peters said. “Lacks foundation.”

“Yeah, they did,” Armstrong answered
.

LOL! Who is "Peters", a new lawyer? Did Wonderboy fire his team of lawyers again?

Peters is one of the lawyers in Keker's firm. He's behaving inappropriately in the deposition, as the feds note. One of his quoted objections is not even a legal objection. He's just trying to keep the feds from examining Armstrong.
 
Dopestrong getting on everybody's neves it seems : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrongs-deposition-testimony-made-public/

“More than once during the first seven hours of his deposition, Armstrong sought to minimize or explain away his most incriminating prior statements,” the court filing said, according to usatoday.com.

For example, when asked if he was writing a book, Armstrong answered. “I’m not. I mean, I am, but I’m not … I mean I’m writing one right now. I mean, how can you not include this content in a book?”

At one point during the seven-hour session on July 23, exchanges between the attorneys became so heated that even Armstrong seemed to tire of it, asking “Can’t we all just get along?”

In the transcipt, he stated that he first started doping in "Most likely 1993,” with the product being Synacthen.

Armstrong also reiterated his “never tested positive” stance. “To me it means what it means, that I had never been positive. Whether there was – to me, TUEs don’t fall under that. Suspicious samples that may or may not have been announced don’t fall under that. Even the cortisone incident or the episode in 1999 didn’t fall under that, because technically that wasn’t a positive sense.”

Even he admits, however, that “this was semantics.”

Armstrong’s counsel Elliot Peters at one point objected to a question, saying “ “I’m instructing him not to answer, because you’re just harassing him at this point,” Peters said. Moments later, he said Armstrong could answer the question.

The former cyclist did not always follow his counsel’s instructions. For example,when asked if sponsors wanted to use the story of Armstrong as a clean rider to sell their products, he answered, “Yeah. Trek did, Nike did. Giro did. Oakley did.” But when asked if the USPS did, Peters said, “Objection. “Lacks foundation.” However, Armstrong answered: “Yeah, they did.”
 
Re:

webvan said:
Dopestrong getting on everybody's neves it seems : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrongs-deposition-testimony-made-public/

“More than once during the first seven hours of his deposition, Armstrong sought to minimize or explain away his most incriminating prior statements,” the court filing said, according to usatoday.com.

For example, when asked if he was writing a book, Armstrong answered. “I’m not. I mean, I am, but I’m not … I mean I’m writing one right now. I mean, how can you not include this content in a book?”

At one point during the seven-hour session on July 23, exchanges between the attorneys became so heated that even Armstrong seemed to tire of it, asking “Can’t we all just get along?”

In the transcipt, he stated that he first started doping in "Most likely 1993,” with the product being Synacthen.

Armstrong also reiterated his “never tested positive” stance. “To me it means what it means, that I had never been positive. Whether there was – to me, TUEs don’t fall under that. Suspicious samples that may or may not have been announced don’t fall under that. Even the cortisone incident or the episode in 1999 didn’t fall under that, because technically that wasn’t a positive sense.”

Even he admits, however, that “this was semantics.”

Armstrong’s counsel Elliot Peters at one point objected to a question, saying “ “I’m instructing him not to answer, because you’re just harassing him at this point,” Peters said. Moments later, he said Armstrong could answer the question.

The former cyclist did not always follow his counsel’s instructions. For example,when asked if sponsors wanted to use the story of Armstrong as a clean rider to sell their products, he answered, “Yeah. Trek did, Nike did. Giro did. Oakley did.” But when asked if the USPS did, Peters said, “Objection. “Lacks foundation.” However, Armstrong answered: “Yeah, they did.”

One small point: even if counsel raises an objection during a deposition, you still typically have to answer the question. Most objections are made to get them on the record. Under very few circumstances (specifically being told by counsel not to answer) can you avoid answering the question, but not many. Lance answering after the objection doesn't mean much of anything at all.

It's likely that, if he had given opposing counsel a chance, the necessary foundational questions would have been asked and the objection rendered moot. Lance most likely just made the job a bit easier and shorter.

Curiously, if Peters thought the question lacked foundation relative to USPS, he should have raised it before Lance answered regarding the other sponsors. By letting Lance answer regarding the other sponsors, foundation is created for Lance's personal knowledge of his sponsor's "use the story of Armstrong as a clean rider to sell their products."
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Visit site
I think this is pretty much missing the point to be honest and it is just sad that this has been used to beat one man instead of changing the sport

Was lance and arsehole - Yes
Did Lance do bad things - Yes
Has Lance acknowledged as much - Yes

Did Lance do what he did on his own in a vacuum away from all the powerful men who are supposed to run the sport - HELL NO

Lance answered the doping questions the same as everyone else has always done because they all feel and probably truly believe that what they are doing was not wrong. It was the status quo of being a professional bike rider, and it still is.
The Omerta is going well and strong and the powerful players have got away scott free.

Should we dislike Lance the human being as he was a narcissistic *** - Yes

But surely the bigger point is what has been a missed opportunity to get all the people involved in doping the sport out of the sport.
If that was not the case then I am afraid I do feel a bit sorry for him.

He did what he did because the people around him said they would protect him and he was safe. whether that was the UCI the ASO, Nike, or whoever. those people (with the exception of bruneel) have all got away scott free and many are still earning very good money out of the sport while we ruin one mans life and call it a victory.

To me that is a very small minded revenge mission and not the crusade based on principles of clean sport that it was painted out to be.

Tygart gets rich and famous by destroying someone who got rich and famous by destroying others. - there's a certain circular irony about that.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Rob27172 said:
I think this is pretty much missing the point to be honest and it is just sad that this has been used to beat one man instead of changing the sport

Was lance and arsehole - Yes
Did Lance do bad things - Yes
Has Lance acknowledged as much - Yes

Did Lance do what he did on his own in a vacuum away from all the powerful men who are supposed to run the sport - HELL NO

Lance answered the doping questions the same as everyone else has always done because they all feel and probably truly believe that what they are doing was not wrong. It was the status quo of being a professional bike rider, and it still is.
The Omerta is going well and strong and the powerful players have got away scott free.

Should we dislike Lance the human being as he was a narcissistic * - Yes

But surely the bigger point is what has been a missed opportunity to get all the people involved in doping the sport out of the sport.
If that was not the case then I am afraid I do feel a bit sorry for him.

He did what he did because the people around him said they would protect him and he was safe. whether that was the UCI the ASO, Nike, or whoever. those people (with the exception of bruneel) have all got away scott free and many are still earning very good money out of the sport while we ruin one mans life and call it a victory.

To me that is a very small minded revenge mission and not the crusade based on principles of clean sport that it was painted out to be.

Tygart gets rich and famous by destroying someone who got rich and famous by destroying others. - there's a certain circular irony about that.

Here's the Question: Did Lance expose The UCI? Will he once he has nothing more to lose? Well, we only know he's Lord Ar Sehole. So maybe there's still hope.
 
Rob-your take on Armstrong's plight is a false narrative that does not contain the slightest bit of integrity.

In the film "The Armstrong Lie", Lance claimed not to have doped before 1995. Now in this recent deposition, the date changes to 1993.

He then blames his sponsors for "using" his cancer recovery story to enrich themselves, when he was the main propagator of his myth.

He keeps lying, and continues to lie. This is why this "witchhunt" is warranted, because apparently spending money on lawyers and getting sued is the only way for him to say anything remotely truthful.
 
Re:

Rob27172 said:
I think this is pretty much missing the point to be honest and it is just sad that this has been used to beat one man instead of changing the sport

Was lance and arsehole - Yes
Did Lance do bad things - Yes
Has Lance acknowledged as much - Yes

Did Lance do what he did on his own in a vacuum away from all the powerful men who are supposed to run the sport - HELL NO

Lance answered the doping questions the same as everyone else has always done because they all feel and probably truly believe that what they are doing was not wrong. It was the status quo of being a professional bike rider, and it still is.
The Omerta is going well and strong and the powerful players have got away scott free.

Should we dislike Lance the human being as he was a narcissistic * - Yes

But surely the bigger point is what has been a missed opportunity to get all the people involved in doping the sport out of the sport.
If that was not the case then I am afraid I do feel a bit sorry for him.

He did what he did because the people around him said they would protect him and he was safe. whether that was the UCI the ASO, Nike, or whoever. those people (with the exception of bruneel) have all got away scott free and many are still earning very good money out of the sport while we ruin one mans life and call it a victory.

To me that is a very small minded revenge mission and not the crusade based on principles of clean sport that it was painted out to be.

Tygart gets rich and famous by destroying someone who got rich and famous by destroying others. - there's a certain circular irony about that.

Just picking few points:

1. What is with the asterisk?

Oh, right, he isn't a narcissist at all. He really is a psycho/sociopath as he seems to easily check off all the boxes on that.

2. Tygart gets rich and famous?

Do tell. Did he leave usada for more fertile fields?

Not that he shouldn't have an opportunity to benefit from his dogged pursuit, and exposure. After all, Lance is now trying to write another book to get rich, again, off of his scams.

3. The strong and powerful players?

You mean other than Lance, himself, right?

How many of your other strong and powerful players constantly sought out insurance contracts with an explicit intent to defraud the insurance company?

I dunno, but that seems like a really bad thing to do.

The whole thing was rigged, and Lance was doing the rigging.

Dave.
 
Nov 23, 2013
366
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Rob27172 said:
I think this is pretty much missing the point to be honest and it is just sad that this has been used to beat one man instead of changing the sport

Was lance and arsehole - Yes
Did Lance do bad things - Yes
Has Lance acknowledged as much - Yes

Did Lance do what he did on his own in a vacuum away from all the powerful men who are supposed to run the sport - HELL NO

Lance answered the doping questions the same as everyone else has always done because they all feel and probably truly believe that what they are doing was not wrong. It was the status quo of being a professional bike rider, and it still is.
The Omerta is going well and strong and the powerful players have got away scott free.

Should we dislike Lance the human being as he was a narcissistic * - Yes

But surely the bigger point is what has been a missed opportunity to get all the people involved in doping the sport out of the sport.
If that was not the case then I am afraid I do feel a bit sorry for him.

He did what he did because the people around him said they would protect him and he was safe. whether that was the UCI the ASO, Nike, or whoever. those people (with the exception of bruneel) have all got away scott free and many are still earning very good money out of the sport while we ruin one mans life and call it a victory.

To me that is a very small minded revenge mission and not the crusade based on principles of clean sport that it was painted out to be.

Tygart gets rich and famous by destroying someone who got rich and famous by destroying others. - there's a certain circular irony about that.

Hey Rob, do you know why all of the power players haven't been outed? Do you really think that Lance has answered all the questions just like the others? Are you serious with this bs? Stop insulting our intelligence.
 
Re: Re:

doperhopper said:
Rob27172 said:
I think this is pretty much missing the point to be honest and it is just sad that this has been used to beat one man instead of changing the sport

Was lance and arsehole - Yes
Did Lance do bad things - Yes
Has Lance acknowledged as much - Yes

Did Lance do what he did on his own in a vacuum away from all the powerful men who are supposed to run the sport - HELL NO

Lance answered the doping questions the same as everyone else has always done because they all feel and probably truly believe that what they are doing was not wrong. It was the status quo of being a professional bike rider, and it still is.
The Omerta is going well and strong and the powerful players have got away scott free.

Should we dislike Lance the human being as he was a narcissistic * - Yes

But surely the bigger point is what has been a missed opportunity to get all the people involved in doping the sport out of the sport.
If that was not the case then I am afraid I do feel a bit sorry for him.

He did what he did because the people around him said they would protect him and he was safe. whether that was the UCI the ASO, Nike, or whoever. those people (with the exception of bruneel) have all got away scott free and many are still earning very good money out of the sport while we ruin one mans life and call it a victory.

To me that is a very small minded revenge mission and not the crusade based on principles of clean sport that it was painted out to be.

Tygart gets rich and famous by destroying someone who got rich and famous by destroying others. - there's a certain circular irony about that.

Here's the Question: Did Lance expose The UCI? Will he once he has nothing more to lose? Well, we only know he's Lord Ar Sehole. So maybe there's still hope.

While I don't agree with everything you say, there is a lot of truth here. The anti-doping authorities exist to make the UCI look good, but the UCI has been and always will be a filthy cesspool.

Many of the people who insult you here still cling to the idea that professional cycling is a "sport," and that there is a role in that sport for clean riders. What a joke! If history is any guide, the "sport" will always be dominated by dopers. "Clean," "cleaner," and "cleanish" riders only exist to provide hope to the gullible.

Lance won because he was nastier and because he had a clever and nasty crew surrounding him. In other words, he played the game of professional cycling better than all the rest. He still sucks, and I truly hope he gets financially gashed to the max, but he's the most perfect example of the UCI that you will ever find.

I don't feel sorry for Lance in the least. If you play in the mud with pigs, you're going to get dirty.

Don't let the idiots who personally attack your integrity get you down. They are the fools here. Good to hear a different opinion.
 
Re:

Rob27172 said:
But surely the bigger point is what has been a missed opportunity to get all the people involved in doping the sport out of the sport.

He did what he did because the people around him said they would protect him and he was safe. whether that was the UCI the ASO, Nike, or whoever. those people (with the exception of bruneel) have all got away scott free and many are still earning very good money out of the sport while we ruin one mans life and call it a victory.

Tygart gets rich and famous by destroying someone who got rich and famous by destroying others. - there's a certain circular irony about that.

Rob there is some valid points in your argument. But I feel you have missed three essential things

1. Lance purposely and methodically did what he did for two reasons - money and fame. Money because he wanted to become filthy rich and live the good life. Fame because he is a classic narcissist, ego-maniac and sociopath (maybe even a psychopath). He did not care who or what got in his way to these goals. At his pinnacle he enjoyed the enormous trappings of wealth, soaked up the adulation and stomped on some good honest and decent people, not to mention the fraud he perpetrated on every cancer victim he claimed he was trying to help.

2. It is important to get the dopers out of the sport but the reality is PEDS are here to stay. They will never be eliminated from cycling or sport. This will continue to infinity. PEDS are a motive to get rich, become famous, prolong a career, recover from injury and keep a job. There will always be cycles of greater or lesser PEDS use over the years. These cycles will fluctuate depending on the ongoing see-saw battle between testing and being one step ahead of the testing.

3. Tygart does not make a ton of money. He is paid well but he does not earn anywhere near what he could earn in private practice. He is not the kind of person to seek fame. This is a fiction. He simply strongly believes in what he does and he is good at it. A lot of people unreasonably resents this.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re:

DirtyWorks said:
Race radio's twittering has a link to more of the depo.

Claims first doping was 1995, that would be Och and Motorola. Except he's lying about that as Carmichael doped him sooner than that.

All I got out of the depo was he's a liar.
doped in trathlon