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

[poupou]

So right, he continues to try to dictate the process. Sorry Lancey-poo, you lost!

Why is USADA even entertaining the idea of a reduced sentence, only a few months after it was handed down? There was plenty of opportunity for Armstrong to negotiate before the scheduled arbitration (or during arbitration) but he continued his scorched earth policy. Nobody owes him anything, so let him rot in obliviation. In any case, there is no way he is actually going to give any pertinent information to anti-doping authorities.

The worst thing is that all this is so that he can "compete" again - meaning appearance fees and sponsors. Is anyone really stupid enough to give this guy money? Of course there are which is really pathetic.

I believe that WADA and USADA knows that Lance will not talk, and if he wants to do it they will get the maximum of him. So
they are in control, trying to make a martyr of him for his fans.

 

[Merckx index]

Wow, a large majority of Americans think LA should be prosecuted:

Sixty-four percent of likely American voters are of the opinion that banned cyclist Lance Armstrong should [be] prosecuted for having lied under oath about doping for years with only 16 percent ready to forgive him, according to a Harper Polling poll…

Harper Polling polled 1,900 likely voters on behalf of Conservative Intel on Jan. 22 and it has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.25 percentage points.

That's 80% of people who have an opinion. There aren't many issues in the U.S. where prevailing opinion is that clear-cut. It's bipartisan, too, with 70% of Republicans polled saying he should be prosecuted, and 62% Dems. Just think, a year ago only twelve people in the entire country thought LA should be prosecuted, and they were all Clinic lunatics.

Eric Holder, are you paying attention? And when are you going to make up your mind? How much more time do you need to decide?

 

[TheEnoculator]

Wow, a large majority of Americans think LA should be prosecuted:

Not the least bid surprising. He shows no remorse whatsoever towards those people whose lives he destroyed, why should anyone show him any mercy? And the fact that both sides of the political spectrum want to see him flayed just goes to show how hated he is, as a human being.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Gosh, man, what happened to your sarcasm detector? Get it fixed quick.

Lol, my detectors been broken for awhile, time to have it fixed I guess, sorry man..

 

[Fatclimber]

For the non-twitterers:

@TheRaceRadio: Why does Lance want to talk to WADA and not USADA? WADA is based in Canada. 1/2

@TheRaceRadio: If lance testifies to usada it's on us soil. Under oath, perjury applies. If he testifies in Canada, it doesnt.

 

[Puckfiend]

I come hear everyday, but rarely post; just read. There is a lot of good stuff in the clinic. One thing I have been wondering about though is Tygart's assertion that Wonderboy's BP had a "one in a million" chance of being "normal" and "was indicitive of manipulation".

Is this hyperbole on Tygart's part? If it was as blatant as Ashenden indicated, then why wasn't Pharmstrong sanctioned during that period? And why did Pharmstrong only rate a 4 on the infamous "naughty list" leaked by L'Equipe, which was I thought based on the BP system?

If this has been hashed out previously, I apologise.

 

[hrotha]

I come hear everyday, but rarely post; just read. There is a lot of good stuff in the clinic. One thing I have been wondering about though is Tygart's assertion that Wonderboy's BP had a "one in a million" chance of being "normal" and "was indicitive of manipulation".

Is this hyperbole on Tygart's part? If it was as blatant as Ashenden indicated, then why wasn't Pharmstrong sanctioned during that period? And why did Pharmstrong only rate a 4 on the infamous "naughty list" leaked by L'Equipe, which was I thought based on the BP system?

If this has been hashed out previously, I apologise.

I don't remember if it was Ashenden or some other (ex-)member of the panel, but it was said if they had seen those values in a passport, they would have flagged it as suspicious for closer examination, raising concerns about the UCI having kept it hidden.

 

[Microchip]

...@TheRaceRadio: If lance testifies to usada it's on us soil. Under oath, perjury applies. If he testifies in Canada, it doesnt.

I hope there is some US-arm of WADA. Or WADA can insist he talk to USADA??? Anyway, why get dismayed - Tygart has showed he can answer Armstrong's tactics!

 

[86TDFWinner]

Tygarts probably got some kind of info on Wonderboy to claim that kind of thing, besides the obvious stuff I mean. I believe Tygart, but admittedly am an idiot when it comes to the exacts of doping, and all the ins and outs and so forth. Again, my opinion on your question, I would think Travis is holding some nice info on Wonderboy that we have yet to see, maybe this is part if it. Then again, I could be totally wrong(and usually am on these things).

 

[MarkvW]

For the non-twitterers:

@TheRaceRadio: Why does Lance want to talk to WADA and not USADA? WADA is based in Canada. 1/2

@TheRaceRadio: If lance testifies to usada it's on us soil. Under oath, perjury applies. If he testifies in Canada, it doesnt.

Nice to know that Canada doesn't care if people lie under oath! That was news to me!

 

[The Gnome]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CmgMUFzmDss#


you're special...

 

[mewmewmew13]

Nice to know that Canada doesn't care if people lie under oath! That was news to me!

Apologies to the OP but thought some non twitters here...

"@Guinness_kel: @TheRaceRadio perjury laws very little different in Canada, and would apply. Montreal is in Quebec which is Civil code though"

 

[hrotha]

Nice to know that Canada doesn't care if people lie under oath! That was news to me!

I imagine the issue is that he hasn't already lied under oath in Canada, so he has more leeway to say whatever he wants.

 

[TheEnoculator]

For the non-twitterers:

@TheRaceRadio: Why does Lance want to talk to WADA and not USADA? WADA is based in Canada. 1/2

@TheRaceRadio: If lance testifies to usada it's on us soil. Under oath, perjury applies. If he testifies in Canada, it doesnt.

Not sure I agree with that. Perjury is based on who you talk to, not the location where you testify. Would Armstrong be talking to Canadian federal investigators, or RCMP, if he goes to WADA? I don't see why he would be. WADA's headquarter is in Montreal, but they have jurisdiction all over the world. If anything, Armstrong would be talking to Interpol since his drug trafficking happened around the world. If you lie to Interpol then yes, it's perjury.

 

[D-Queued]

Nice to know that Canada doesn't care if people lie under oath! That was news to me!

Probably not much the Canadian justice system can do if the depositions were in a foreign jurisdiction.

Besides, Canada lets people lie all the time. Canada even lets dopers represent the country internationally in cycling.

Fortunately, Canada does draw a line with those that incite hate. but that is veering away from cycling and into the political arena.

Dave.

 

[Fatclimber]

Nice to know that Canada doesn't care if people lie under oath! That was news to me!

I'm just passing the information along, sounded interesting. I cannot defend/attack it, I know nothing of Canadian laws.

 

[Random Direction]

Nice to know that Canada doesn't care if people lie under oath! That was news to me!

Here you go Mark: http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/131-perjury - have fun reading. The key is of course who he would be under oath to and whether giving information under oath in one jurisdiction would count towards perjury in another.

I'd love it if WADA invited him to testify under oath in Montreal and then switched locations to the U.S. Consulate there or the embassy in Ottawa (which count as U.S. territory).

 

[Rossco8]

I don't remember if it was Ashenden or some other (ex-)member of the panel, but it was said if they had seen those values in a passport, they would have flagged it as suspicious for closer examination, raising concerns about the UCI having kept it hidden.

I recall that as well. And I thought it was Ashenden that said it.

 

[Surfdelux]

Best part of Oprah 2nd interview was her saying to LA at the end, that she hoped the moral of this story would be that "the truth will set you free". Must of hurt like hell, you could see it on LAs face. The closing line of Tyler Hamiltons book, LAs arch nemisis. TKO!
On Hamiltions book (which i just read) and now cleaner cycling, towards the end he says "single teams no longer dominate the Tour". Obviously written pre-2012-Sky Tour. I wonder what THs take on Sky is now?
Probably covered in other threads, I digress.
Are things getting cleaner or worse since 2011?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Here you go Mark: http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/131-perjury - have fun reading. The key is of course who he would be under oath to and whether giving information under oath in one jurisdiction would count towards perjury in another.

I'd love it if WADA invited him to testify under oath in Montreal and then switched locations to the U.S. Consulate there or the embassy in Ottawa (which count as U.S. territory).

Pretty sure that there will be a lot of conditions agreed upon before he spills including when, where, and to what authority. He is stuck with USADA however, when it comes to a reduced ban. This should be interesting. Herman has the perfect client....guilty, wealthy (for now) and fighting everything.

 

[TheEnoculator]

Best part of Oprah 2nd interview was her saying to LA at the end, that she hoped the moral of this story would be that "the truth will set you free". Must of hurt like hell, you could see it on LAs face.

I think Oprah used that line as an ironic statement towards Armstrong. She's interviewed enough people to be able to tell if someone's telling the truth. And from her reactions throughout the interview, you can tell that at times she didn't believe him. And Armstrong was looking down, deep in thought when Oprah said that, indicating he was probably revisiting everything he said and thinking which were the ones that he lied. As opposed to Tyler's reaction after telling the truth, full eye contact, it's a huge difference.

 

[Joachim]

A week and a half on from it and it just seems bizarre. Almost to the point of wondering why he did it.

 

[caryopsis]

I think Oprah used that line as an ironic statement towards Armstrong. She's interviewed enough people to be able to tell if someone's telling the truth. And from her reactions throughout the interview, you can tell that at times she didn't believe him. And Armstrong was looking down, deep in thought when Oprah said that, indicating he was probably revisiting everything he said and thinking which were the ones that he lied. As opposed to Tyler's reaction after telling the truth, full eye contact, it's a huge difference.

Also, "the truth will/shall set you free" is from the Bible, so it's been an oft-used phrase long before Tyler used it in his book. It's possible that Oprah hadn't connected it to Tyler's book at all when she decided to end the interview that way (same with Sheryl Crow using the phrase to ET) - though who knows, maybe they're both Tyler mega-fans now...

 

[D-Queued]

A week and a half on from it and it just seems bizarre. Almost to the point of wondering why he did it.

I have been advised from a reliable source that he actually is in conflict over his legacy. While I am heavily interpreting that conversation through my own filter, I believe that they believe he was sincere.

If it hadn't come from who it did, I would have laughed.

I suppose it is possible.

Dave.

 

[lagartija]

Nothing serious here , but it was asked up thread and i thought it was funny.

Lance flew to Hawaii on Jet Blue , family in tow . apparently drank a fair bit and was in no mood for conversation . really just coincidence , a good friend and riding buddy is a jet blue pilot . when he told me about it i thought it was hilarious . oh he wasnt particularly pleasant to the attendants , lol .