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

[sniper]

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

... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .

You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.

No one I can think of is asserting that Merckx was clean. Contador was caught. Indurain refuses to deny it at this point. Wiggins' reputation has taken a beating. Froome has plenty of public doubters. LeMond has received the appropriate amount of static for it, which is to say, pretty much none whatsoever outside of this forum.

Agreed.
My point would be: why are observers and reporters still making such a fuss about Lance being a liar, when he's already been exposed as such? He cannot and will never again claim he was clean.
The others I mentioned can still claim that they never doped and it will go unchallenged by most reporters and many cycling fans.

 

[kingjr]

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

I mention 6 riders and you single him out?
agenda much?

What agenda?

 

[carton]

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

My point would be: why are observers and reporters still making such a fuss about Lance being a liar, when he's already been exposed as such? He cannot and will never again claim he was clean.
The others I mentioned can still claim that they never doped and it will go unchallenged by most reporters and many cycling fans.

First, Merckx, Indurain and Contador can't state that they never doped and go unchallenged in most circles. Even Wiggins will probably get some pushback at this point. Froome hasn't been caught doping, that's just a fact as of now.

But then again Lance was something else. He lied about so many different things. He lied so hard he made the other liars uncomfortable. Look at Hincapie's face in the Kimmage video. He took it to another level. But it's not just that. When he confessed, he failed to completely own up to it, even while putting on a show of "honesty". I listened to a lot of the early post-confession stuff and got very little out of it, except as a case study on Lance as an individual. I look at pretty much everyone else, I get cocky like Millar, broken down like Landis, bittersweet like Jaksche, unrepentant like Valverde, phony like Hincapie or even in denial like Danielson. But I think I get them as human beings struggling with mistakes they've made. But with Lance, I really don't think he cares at all. I think what worries him is what comes next for him. That's just the impression that I get, and I think I'm not the only one. I won't mention the P-word, but I really don't think he's someone who thinks the truth matters, outside of the fact that revealing previously untold details can further attention for whatever narrative he wants to put out. I don't think as followers of a sport it's worthwhile to allow ourselves to fall hostage to that. Let him say what he wants, I'll listen if someone else who can corroborate what he's stating comments on it. Maybe when I find his public persona believable and not just a put-on I'll start listening again. Which, to be fair, given his history, I might never be able to.

BTW, Lance still claims he was clean in 2009-10. Again, with someone like Jorg Jaksche I feel I can sort out the facts from the opinions with a little critical thinking and gain a little insight. With Lance I just think as of now it's an impossible task, Maybe after the lawsuit issue is settled that might start to change. As of the moment I'd just rather not even try. YMMV, evidently.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?

you keep trying to paint him as just another [apologetic] doper. Poor, abused Lance. Why the hate?

yet he is far more than that.

why not address the greed, cynicism and fraudulent intent that lead to the livestrong .com/.org bamboozlement.

the skimming of millions honestly donated in the hopes of research and the potential for a minimization/end to some of the suffering caused by cancer.

all diverted into "cancer awareness" , private jets, fancy living
a disgusting scam, executed by a pure scumbag and his associates.

go on, call him just another doper who's paid his dues.
which other doper has perpetrated anything close what this piece of human excrement has done?

You just have love how those who are so offended by Lance's lying can promote their own pack of lies. At least with a sociopath like Betsy there is a cynical self interest and motivation for twisting the truth, but here we have an example of someone lying for the sake of lying.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

It's telling that this tread is labeled "post-confession"
when we still haven't heard it from the horses mouth.

 

[sniper]

ToS, what do you mean with "it"?
He's confessed to doping, in front of a not very small audience, so "post-confession" sounds fair enough.

Honest question: has Eddy Merckx ever confessed? Has he ever said "yes, I doped"?

@carton: good post, fair points.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

It's telling that this tread is labeled "post-confession"
when we still haven't heard it from the horses mouth.

"Post-confession" is just a point in time that everyone agrees happened when LA went on the Oprah Winfrey show and admitted to doping. This thread is labeled appropriately....

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

It's telling that this tread is labeled "post-confession"
when we still haven't heard it from the horses mouth.

"Post-confession" is just a point in time that everyone agrees happened when LA went on the Oprah Winfrey show and admitted to doping. This thread is labeled appropriately....

The closest Merckx ever came to a confession was in in 1968, his very own Oprah moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxd4t9gTOSE

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

It's telling that this tread is labeled "post-confession"
when we still haven't heard it from the horses mouth.

"Post-confession" is just a point in time that everyone agrees happened when LA went on the Oprah Winfrey show and admitted to doping. This thread is labeled appropriately....

The closest Merckx ever came to a confession was in in 1968, his very own Oprah moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxd4t9gTOSE

Even back then riders lied like a carpet...

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

The closest Merckx ever came to a confession was in in 1968, his very own Oprah moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxd4t9gTOSE

Nice footage, hadn't seen that before. Eddy was a pretty good "politician" even back then.

 

[noddy69]

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

... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .

You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.

I'm sorry but Lance hasn't been fully exposed nor fully investigated. You seem dismissive of the Livestrong absolute sham and underplay its importance in how this should play out. Wanting his side of the story seems to be how you imagine the narative should go? Ok lets give the serial liar and fraudster a platform to tell us his side of the story ?
What side do you think he will tell. The one where he raises millions for charity- where everyone else was taking drugs too..where he said sorry so its ok and he has been punished but he is still champ.
The one where his charity work was making lives better-where everyone he apologised to is ok with how he treated them and anyway it was how cycling was.
I tend to think by the tone of your posts you just want Lance to talk about Le Monde so you have ammo there where you are lacking. Although what use that would be from a serial liar who is still talking crap about 2010 is beyond me. Giving Lance a platform at all is wrong. He is without a doubt in my mind a fraudster and what he has done re Livestrong is reprehensible and cannot be just dismissed like your comments and I quote

'Yeah, the cancer card was awful.
But Lemond played the "I got shot" card and the "kidney patient" card. Of course he never faced the scrutiny Lance faced. But if he had, think about what his defense would have sounded like'

Showing the agenda with Le Monde comments which in this context are really petty.....In my opinion

 

[sniper]

If applying the same standard of evidence and same level of skepticism to Lemond as to other GT winners means having an agenda, then so be it.

The rest of your issues are well taken but, as Alpe73 said, just not worth arguing about.

 

[Alpe73]

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

... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .

You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.

I'm sorry but Lance hasn't been fully exposed nor fully investigated. You seem dismissive of the Livestrong absolute sham and underplay its importance in how this should play out. Wanting his side of the story seems to be how you imagine the narative should go? Ok lets give the serial liar and fraudster a platform to tell us his side of the story ?
What side do you think he will tell. The one where he raises millions for charity- where everyone else was taking drugs too..where he said sorry so its ok and he has been punished but he is still champ.
The one where his charity work was making lives better-where everyone he apologised to is ok with how he treated them and anyway it was how cycling was.
I tend to think by the tone of your posts you just want Lance to talk about Le Monde so you have ammo there where you are lacking. Although what use that would be from a serial liar who is still talking crap about 2010 is beyond me. Giving Lance a platform at all is wrong. He is without a doubt in my mind a fraudster and what he has done re Livestrong is reprehensible and cannot be just dismissed like your comments and I quote

'Yeah, the cancer card was awful.
But Lemond played the "I got shot" card and the "kidney patient" card. Of course he never faced the scrutiny Lance faced. But if he had, think about what his defense would have sounded like'

Showing the agenda with Le Monde comments which in this context are really petty.....In my opinion

What is the "Livestrong sham" and what is your evidence?

 

[Benotti69]

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

... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .

You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.

I'm sorry but Lance hasn't been fully exposed nor fully investigated. You seem dismissive of the Livestrong absolute sham and underplay its importance in how this should play out. Wanting his side of the story seems to be how you imagine the narative should go? Ok lets give the serial liar and fraudster a platform to tell us his side of the story ?
What side do you think he will tell. The one where he raises millions for charity- where everyone else was taking drugs too..where he said sorry so its ok and he has been punished but he is still champ.
The one where his charity work was making lives better-where everyone he apologised to is ok with how he treated them and anyway it was how cycling was.
I tend to think by the tone of your posts you just want Lance to talk about Le Monde so you have ammo there where you are lacking. Although what use that would be from a serial liar who is still talking crap about 2010 is beyond me. Giving Lance a platform at all is wrong. He is without a doubt in my mind a fraudster and what he has done re Livestrong is reprehensible and cannot be just dismissed like your comments and I quote

'Yeah, the cancer card was awful.
But Lemond played the "I got shot" card and the "kidney patient" card. Of course he never faced the scrutiny Lance faced. But if he had, think about what his defense would have sounded like'

Showing the agenda with Le Monde comments which in this context are really petty.....In my opinion

What is the "Livestrong sham" and what is your evidence?

Well apart from providing Armstrong with a private jet, you can trawl back through the Armstrong threads to find the information that is was nothing more than an income generator for the Armstrong crew.

 

[Alpe73]

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

... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .

You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.

I'm sorry but Lance hasn't been fully exposed nor fully investigated. You seem dismissive of the Livestrong absolute sham and underplay its importance in how this should play out. Wanting his side of the story seems to be how you imagine the narative should go? Ok lets give the serial liar and fraudster a platform to tell us his side of the story ?
What side do you think he will tell. The one where he raises millions for charity- where everyone else was taking drugs too..where he said sorry so its ok and he has been punished but he is still champ.
The one where his charity work was making lives better-where everyone he apologised to is ok with how he treated them and anyway it was how cycling was.
I tend to think by the tone of your posts you just want Lance to talk about Le Monde so you have ammo there where you are lacking. Although what use that would be from a serial liar who is still talking crap about 2010 is beyond me. Giving Lance a platform at all is wrong. He is without a doubt in my mind a fraudster and what he has done re Livestrong is reprehensible and cannot be just dismissed like your comments and I quote

'Yeah, the cancer card was awful.
But Lemond played the "I got shot" card and the "kidney patient" card. Of course he never faced the scrutiny Lance faced. But if he had, think about what his defense would have sounded like'

Showing the agenda with Le Monde comments which in this context are really petty.....In my opinion

What is the "Livestrong sham" and what is your evidence?

Well apart from providing Armstrong with a private jet, you can trawl back through the Armstrong threads to find the information that is was nothing more than an income generator for the Armstrong crew.

Serious accusations against this particular cancer charity, I'm sure you agree. Of course, you have a right to make accusations. Just asking for YOUR evidence and/or YOUR links to support the veracity of your accusations.

 

[noddy69]

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



What is the "Livestrong sham" and what is your evidence?[/quote]

Well apart from providing Armstrong with a private jet, you can trawl back through the Armstrong threads to find the information that is was nothing more than an income generator for the Armstrong crew.[/quote]

Serious accusations against this particular cancer charity, I'm sure you agree. Of course, you have a right to make accusations. Just asking for YOUR evidence and/or YOUR links to support the veracity of your accusations.[/quote]






You didn't ask him you asked me and if you read back I called it a sham, called him a fraudster and said what he did was reprehensible. I also noted he hadn't been fully investigated- but no definitive claims where I would need evidence that aren't already in the public domain.
Here's just one if you havent got the hang of searching in google yet- I know its tricky
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.ie/2012/01/lance-armstrong-investigation.html

 

[Benotti69]

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

Serious accusations against this particular cancer charity, I'm sure you agree. Of course, you have a right to make accusations. Just asking for YOUR evidence and/or YOUR links to support the veracity of your accusations.

Charity? All they did was scour the internet for information on cancer using interns and provide it on a website and if people rang up. How is that a charity?

Armstrong's dedication to cancer is so strong that livestrong.com is now a fitness website!

Cancer jesus has been crucified, some are trying to resurrect him. :lol:

 

[Aragon]

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

Charity? All they did was scour the internet for information on cancer using interns and provide it on a website and if people rang up. How is that a charity?

Armstrong's dedication to cancer is so strong that livestrong.com is now a fitness website!

Cancer jesus has been crucified, some are trying to resurrect him. :lol:

Honestly, not particularly impressed by your research. According to Wayback-machine, www.livestrong.com has been a fitness website at least from 2002:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021126124639/http://livestrong.com/

This is because the webpage of the LiveStrong-foundation is http://www.livestrong.org.

 

[Benotti69]

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

Charity? All they did was scour the internet for information on cancer using interns and provide it on a website and if people rang up. How is that a charity?

Armstrong's dedication to cancer is so strong that livestrong.com is now a fitness website!

Cancer jesus has been crucified, some are trying to resurrect him. :lol:

Honestly, not particularly impressed by your research. According to Wayback-machine, http://www.livestrong.com has been a fitness website at least from 2002:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021126124639/http://livestrong.com/

This is because the webpage of the LiveStrong-foundation is http://www.livestrong.org.

yeah, but all the traffic and dollars were directed to the .com and not the .org. That is how much Armstrong loved fighting cancer and not cashing in on the cancer jesus.

this old ground already covered in old Armstrong/livewrong threads.

 

[Irondan]

I deleted alpe73 comments because I don't have any idea who or what he was trying to quote, convey, or establish with his comments since he made a butchery of them with the quote and color functions. I don't have the time to try and decipher these things and I certainly don't appreciate being insulted for trying to get them straightened out.

Alpe73 please don't use the quote or any of the other functions if you can't get them to work properly.

Markvw, insulting mods in the reports that you file is prohibited, consider this the one and only warning you get.

 

[thehog]

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

WASHINGTON — Lance Armstrong sat silently in a federal courtroom here Wednesday as the main defendant in the biggest case of his life — the United States of America vs. Lance Armstrong, a civil action filed against him by the federal government that still could cost him nearly $100 million.

He didn’t testify or speak. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper instead heard arguments from attorneys on both sides in a lawsuit that essentially boils down to this:

Should Armstrong have to repay the government for all the sins he committed more than 12 years ago as a rider for the U.S. Postal Service cycling team?

The U.S. Justice Department says yes and sent several attorneys to Wednesday’s pretrial hearing.

“Lance Armstrong created a flood of lies that saturated every invoice that was submitted,” U.S. Justice Department attorney Robert Chandler told Cooper. “He lied directly to the Postal Service. He had others lie directly to the Postal Service on his behalf. He made countless public statements on television and to print reporters.... false statements perpetuating his lie that he wasn’t doping.”

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/cycling/2016/11/02/lance-armstrong-federal-court-hearing-civil-suit/93182570/

Armstrong’s attorney, Elliot Peters, disagreed and is asking that the case be thrown out in summary judgment by Cooper, or at least that it be drastically reduced. After two hours of arguments, Cooper said he was taking the matter under advisement. He might not rule until 2017 but has several options, including throwing the whole case out in summary judgment, throwing out parts of it, or greenlighting the whole suit for a jury trial. No trial date has been set.

“This is the fun part,” Cooper said Wednesday at the start of the proceedings.

But it wasn’t much fun for Armstrong. The stakes and costs for him in the case are huge after spending more than three years defending himself against it. He declined comment afterward to USA TODAY Sports as he shuffled out of court with his attorneys.

Landis did not appear in court Wednesday. His attorney, Paul Scott, was there on his behalf and argued that Armstrong should be held accountable because otherwise it would set a terrible precedent that was not in the public interest. “By concealing their fraud for as long as they did, they want to be rewarded for it,” Scott said of Armstrong and Tailwind.

He said Armstrong’s entire enterprise with the Postal Service was “morally tainted at its core.”

“What about the impact that this has on the United States of America?” Scott asked the judge.

 

[Pazuzu]

Re: Re:

It's telling that this tread is labeled "post-confession"
when we still haven't heard it from the horses mouth.

"Post-confession" is just a point in time that everyone agrees happened when LA went on the Oprah Winfrey show and admitted to doping. This thread is labeled appropriately....

Perhaps post-partial confession would be a more apt title for this thread.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I find it interesting that right here on CN front page, the article on Armstrong's subtitle reads:

"Former Tour de France winner did not speak or testify."

Huh, when I look at anything from official records, to Wikipedia, to everything else, it tells me that Amstrong never won the Tour. So what gives?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-attends-federal-court-hearing/

 

[Pazuzu]

Re:

I find it interesting that right here on CN front page, the article on Armstrong's subtitle reads:

"Former Tour de France winner did not speak or testify."

Huh, when I look at anything from official records, to Wikipedia, to everything else, it tells me that Amstrong never won the Tour. So what gives?

Sloppy editing. It should read "former fraudulent Tour de France winner did not speak or testify."

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

I find it interesting that right here on CN front page, the article on Armstrong's subtitle reads:

"Former Tour de France winner did not speak or testify."

Huh, when I look at anything from official records, to Wikipedia, to everything else, it tells me that Amstrong never won the Tour. So what gives?

Sloppy editing. It should read "former fraudulent Tour de France winner did not speak or testify."

why even mention the Tour?