LongSprint said:A bit player who stood atop the TdF podium 7 times?
A bit player who received tens of millions of dollars a year in sponsorship?
A bit player who may have influenced investigations at multiple levels, including USA Federal?
Yeah, some bit player.
coinneach said:I hate the way folk are talking about this "confession"
A "confession" is when you go in to the police station voluntarily and tell them what you did.
An "admission" is when the police take you in for questioning and you tell them what you did
A "Plea for clemency" is when you have been found guilty, and you admit it and ask the authorities for mercy.
Lance has been found guilty and he still doesn't fully admit it, nor go to the authorities, but tries to get sympathy on a stage managed TV show.
Come on guys...lets not fall for this and lets get rid of this "confession" word from the narrative (that Lance is still trying to manage!)
My thoughts exactly. Cynical attempt to start his rehabilitation on his own terms.coinneach said:I hate the way folk are talking about this "confession"
A "confession" is when you go in to the police station voluntarily and tell them what you did.
An "admission" is when the police take you in for questioning and you tell them what you did
A "Plea for clemency" is when you have been found guilty, and you admit it and ask the authorities for mercy.
Lance has been found guilty and he still doesn't fully admit it, nor go to the authorities, but tries to get sympathy on a stage managed TV show.
Come on guys...lets not fall for this and lets get rid of this "confession" word from the narrative (that Lance is still trying to manage!)
SI: What did you and Greg make of the part one of the Oprah interview?
LeMond: It's all about how he can forward himself. This is not authentic. If this were authentic, he would ask to talk to us and ask, 'What can I do to heal you? I really hurt you.'
SI: Are you convinced by anything in his sort of general admission of mistakes?
LeMond: No. No. Honestly, I don't feel that he's even in there. I do believe he's embarrassed, kind of. One of our lawyers has a house in Hawaii just down from Lance and I talked to him a couple days ago and he said every other year he's been there he sees Lance out riding with locals and everybody's kind of excited. Now he said he's never with anybody out on the road. He's by himself. ... I think it's hit him. People don't want to be near him. He's become a pariah. I think he's flailing, but I don't have any reason to believe what he's saying is true. The parts I know of what he's saying aren't true! Or only partially true.
Panda Claws said:Armstrong should not give back money that he did work his *** of for. It is sad that they need to set an example this way.
Bicycle tramp said:I'm not claiming that Lance is an Angel. He's not by any definition.
But his "success" rested on systemic corruption that went beyond anything he could have personally orchestrated, although he was a wilful player.
I hope he recognises this and hands over some heads. I pretty much doubt that this will happen, because most people will be happy to accept Lance's head.
LongSprint said:1. He gives at least 95% of his fortune to a real charity
2. He publicly admits exactly what he did to and said about Lemond, the Andreus, Kimmage, at al and ask them what he can do to make amends
3. He gives up his attempt to return to cycling, tri, whatever and spends the time trying to repair his relationship with his kids instead
4. He volunteers to help out at his local hospital helping cancer patients during their treatment
5. He publicly admits that the show he just gave with Oprah was more of the same BS
Feel free to add your own.
silverrocket said:Obviously doping existing in cycling long before LA, and the UCI was clearly looking the other way, but I think the systemic corruption that allowed LA to get away with it for so long did not really exist until Armstrong came along. I think Armstrong and his handlers actually did orchestrate an entirely new level of corruption with Hein and Pat. He wasn't just a willful player, he changed the game.
trailrunner said:6. He unselfishly volunteers at local triathlons, crits, and running races for five years before even thinking about begging to ask to return to competition.
trailrunner said:6. He unselfishly volunteers at local triathlons, crits, and running races for five years before even thinking about begging to ask to return to competition.
D-Queued said:The return to competition line is pure BS.
He wants to have an audience to promote the next book / get endorsement contracts / etc. It is all about the money.
Thus, if I may, can I suggest modifying this point as follows:
6. He unselfishly volunteers at local races for five years, cleaning the porta-potties, without competing, and without conducting any self-promotion or product endorsement
Dave.
D-Queued said:I'd like to consider another of the new lies: The Biopassport works and is unbeatable.
Let's set aside that this statement is completely self-serving.
Let's set aside that there have been remarkably few BP cases that have been been brought forward, or that have resulted in a sancton.
Let's set aside that Lance actually was a high risk on the BP scale.
Let's set aside that the UCI failed to test any of the BP targets for EPO.
Let's set aside the fact that Ashenden himself has confirmed the BP can be beaten.
Let's set aside statements from Tyler, and others, to the effect that 'our doctors are smarter than your doctors' and that Lance's doctors had a very sophisticated monitoring program and specialized (!) in tweaking Lance's parameters.
Let's set aside the fact that Lance was still consulting and paying Ferrari.
AND,
Simply consider this:
How would Lance know the Biopassport is unbeatable?
Where is his proof?
Having admitted that he is a liar, we need a bit more than his word on it.
How would Lance know that unless he had doped, and the BP had exposed this when other tests had not?
Is there another smoking gun here?
Either way, Lance's statement is a clear lie.
Dave.
silverrocket said:Obviously doping existing in cycling long before LA, and the UCI was clearly looking the other way, but I think the systemic corruption that allowed LA to get away with it for so long did not really exist until Armstrong came along. I think Armstrong and his handlers actually did orchestrate an entirely new level of corruption with Hein and Pat. He wasn't just a willful player, he changed the game.
frenchfry said:What is the biggest lie: that he didn't dope for his comeback because he thought cycling was very clean, or that after he came in 3rd in 2009 he said to himself that he had simply been beaten by 2 guys that are better.
Jeremiah said:They shouldn't EVER let him COMPETE again. That's his crazy addiction. Saying he's better than the average person. He can't handle it. It's his way to exalt himself and that's his penalty.
trailrunner said:I didn't say I'd let him return - I said 5 years before he's allowed to even ask to return. It's pretty arrogant to already be asking to be allowed to compete. How long has he been sanctioned for - 3 or 4 months so far? When he told Oprah that he "deserved" to be able to compete really made me mad.
After 5 years of working aid stations and standing with an orange flag at road intersections at crits, I'd pull a Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown and say "sorry - come back in another 5 years and ask again."