• 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 101 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Jean-Luc Picard said:
That's NOT what I'm calling for. We know he broke the doping codes. He accepts that. But there is a hell of a lot more to discuss. It would be a post guilty debate, a kinda TRC. But it would also touch of the hot topics that both parties still hotly dispute, like the evidence over continued doping on the comeback, and the nature of how the USADA offered deals. It would probably largely be about if the sport has changed. I think it would be healthy since there is STILL a lot of lingering issues out there that periodically return. Still feels unresolved.

Anyway, I hope both sides would not chicken out if they really are confident.

There is no debate, no hot dispute. Only lance trying to spin his way out of it.

All the riders who told the truth have said the same thing, they were not offered a deal until after they testified. Lance was given the same chance to come in a tell the truth.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/150499171/USADA-invite-to-Lance-Armstrong

He told them to Fork off.

The experts agree that Lance doped in his comeback.

Despite Lance's lying and smearing of USADA they are still open to talking to him.....but he is too chicken to do it
 
Jean-Luc Picard said:
If there were underhand dealings in how deals were struck by USADA in the case, Armstrong could put that across and have Tygart defend it..

Jean-Luc Picard said:
. But it would also touch of the hot topics that both parties still hotly dispute, like the evidence over continued doping on the comeback, and the nature of how the USADA offered deals.

The message slowly creeps out...

The "real" Picard loved his #1, this one is full of #2
 
I don't think Armstrong is interested. He is finished with this stuff.

“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, “Enough is enough.” For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart’s unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense."

LOL.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Visit site
Jean-Luc Picard said:
I think USADA and Lance Armstrong should hold a public debate so this thing can be flushed out. It would give both sides the opportunity to put their point of view on the fairness or otherwise of the whole episode, and how it helps or does not help the sport.

A public debate would also be really fun to watch.

New intern....
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Visit site
Bosco10 said:
Now hold on just a gull darn minute. Is Jean Luc Picard actually Lance Edward Armstrong? OMG..naw..

Probably not, but if he is I would say just one thing. Please Lance, do the decent thing and come clean properly. Most of all give a full account of the complicity of the UCI in the 'US Postal /Discovery doping conspiracy'. Do what you can to expose the whole rotten core of the sport and so help to rebuild a better future. Do this and I feel that you will be 'forgiven' and even thanked by even the most vocal of your critics. Fail to do this and everyone will continue to believe that everything you do still has just one aim, to serve your own interests.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Lance! Nice of you to drop by. Ignoring the rules because you don't like them again?

Call Tygart up and tell the whole doping story from the beginning with Carmichael, to Ferrari. Names, dates, places. You'll probably be prosecuted for various white collar crimes as a result, but that's how being a human in a society actually works. That other stuff you do is not it.

I think Lance can go back to before Carmichael. Remember that neck on a 16 year old in triathlons.

But great to see Ol Monkeymouth in an echo chamber:D
 
Jean-Luc Picard said:
...But if a reputable third party independently contacted Tygart and Lance and said, 'hey, guys, we would like to have a general discussion here, are you interested?', I think they should both jump at it.

That's all I'm saying.

Reputable third party? Pete Rose maybe? Please post some examples.

General discussion? Uhhh okay. "I did some stuff that I won't be specific about..... " leaving moments later in a stream of expletives and contempt. And then use the meeting to pronounce yourself the T&R champion. Right? Brilliant! Go for it!

Wrong.
 
Jul 13, 2012
76
0
0
Visit site
I have mixed feelings about this judgement: "[The insurance company] AIH argued that the [statute of limitations] timing only started when Armstrong publicly admitted to doping in January of this year."

Sure, I don't mind Armstrong having to pay back as much of his prize money as possible. But the ruling on the statute of limitations could send the wrong message to other dopers who consider coming clean. It could send the right message to cyclist who consider doping, of course.
 
enCYCLOpedia said:
I have mixed feelings about this judgement: "[The insurance company] AIH argued that the [statute of limitations] timing only started when Armstrong publicly admitted to doping in January of this year."

Sure, I don't mind Armstrong having to pay back as much of his prize money as possible. But the ruling on the statute of limitations could send the wrong message to other dopers who consider coming clean. It could send the right message to cyclist who consider doping, of course.

Or it could simply be a legal decision that has nothing to do with sending messages of any kind.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
enCYCLOpedia said:
I have mixed feelings about this judgement: "[The insurance company] AIH argued that the [statute of limitations] timing only started when Armstrong publicly admitted to doping in January of this year."

Sure, I don't mind Armstrong having to pay back as much of his prize money as possible. But the ruling on the statute of limitations could send the wrong message to other dopers who consider coming clean. It could send the right message to cyclist who consider doping, of course.

There are plenty of different roads to take to coming clean.

JV never suffered any penalties. Ended up running a team, not bad for a doper.

CVdV, TomD and others recieved 6 month bans for their part in admitting. They even managed to serve them over the off season. there has been no mention of paying anyone back.

So Armstrong's ban and repayments are a based due to how he competed with sponsors and bonuses
 
enCYCLOpedia said:
I have mixed feelings about this judgement: "[The insurance company] AIH argued that the [statute of limitations] timing only started when Armstrong publicly admitted to doping in January of this year."

Sure, I don't mind Armstrong having to pay back as much of his prize money as possible. But the ruling on the statute of limitations could send the wrong message to other dopers who consider coming clean. It could send the right message to cyclist who consider doping, of course.

This has nothing to do with anti-doping. This is basic fraud litigation where the defrauded discovered the fraud from the fraudster's public admission years after the fraud took place. The SOL starts from the time of the discovery, or at least from the time the defrauded should have reasonably known about the fraud.

Armstrong is boned on this one. The SCA case is much different because of the settlement.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
This has nothing to do with anti-doping. This is basic fraud litigation where the defrauded discovered the fraud from the fraudster's public admission years after the fraud took place. The SOL starts from the time of the discovery, or at least from the time the defrauded should have reasonably known about the fraud.

Armstrong is boned on this one. The SCA case is much different because of the settlement.
the question should be how much he took from BetFair and Mr.Bookmaker and PaddyPower. did he double down? I think i worked out that SCA odds were about 9-4. and i reckon his odds during his heyday were about evens.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Visit site
Funny

All the comments at the Ragbrai website on the page mentioning that Armstrong was going to ride this year disappeared except for the one claiming that Livestrong donated 500 million to cancer research. So, the one post they leave up is a big fat lie.

It is hard to make this stuff up.
 
Zweistein said:
Funny

All the comments at the Ragbrai website on the page mentioning that Armstrong was going to ride this year disappeared except for the one claiming that Livestrong donated 500 million to cancer research. So, the one post they leave up is a big fat lie.

It is hard to make this stuff up.

CBS has an exposé on Livestrong airing this weekend.
 

TRENDING THREADS