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

[Archibald]

Stapleton is smarter than Armstrong................but we all know Armstrong will settle.

yes, but bill rolling over without LA knowing, and then LA dropping himself in it, would be gold to watch

 

[frenchfry]

Yes, you helped me find a video clip I've been searching for since I saw it in 2004!

Lance Chronicles...

Lance giving the OLN camera crew a tour:

Pills & mocking french journalism at 5:40.

Johan flipping out at 6:20 about a TV camera being in the hotel rooms, kicks them out. "TV camera...Fnk...I told them that's not allowed...Funk...That's...Not Allowed..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQMCiVvOd_I

At 1:45 "spittin', that's not the way to act."

I bet he told that to Ekimov a year later as well.

 

[MarkvW]

yes, but bill rolling over without LA knowing, and then LA dropping himself in it, would be gold to watch

Seems to me that Stapleton's best pitch is to say that he did everything that SCA says he did, but that he was acting as Lance's agent and that he did not know that Lance was a dope cheat. That pitch, if it is believed, ought to keep Stapleton out of liability without increasing Lance's risk.

If Stapleton says that he knew Lance was doping and cheating and that he helped him perpetrate the fraud, then he is only opening himself up for major liability. There is no reason for him to do that.

If Lance turns on Stapleton, then all he could possibly prove is that his agent lied and cheated on his behalf and at his direction. That could provide SCA with another pot of money to tap, but it wouldn't stop SCA from going against Lance for the max that they can recover from him--and Lance wouldn't appear to be able to go against his agent (Stapleton) for doing the very things that Lance told him to do.

Additionally, if Lance turns on Stapleton, why would anybody believe Lance? Why should Lance risk all the bad things that turning on Stapleton could bring if there is a great possibility that nobody would believe him? Implicating Stapleton only implicates Lance deeper and deeper.

 

[thehog]

That would be dumb. The best way to answer is; you were doing what every other manger / rider was doing therefore not cheating anyone.

You still won.

There are no prizes for telling the truth. And no prices for providing any more information other than what's barely required. One word answers will suffice.

 

[D-Queued]

That would be dumb. The best way to answer is; you were doing what every other manger / rider was doing therefore not cheating anyone.

You still won.

There are no prizes for telling the truth. And no prices for providing any more information other than what's barely required. One word answers will suffice.

Would that word be 'uh' or 'Idon'trecall'?

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

And to put a finer point on it, we can anticipate something like this:

Q: When you were on the Oprah show, did you state <insert any one of many statements here>

A: Who?

Q: Here, let me replay a section of the interview for you.

A: Oh, yes, Oprah. I thought you said something else.

Q: Back to my question, in this segment right here you state...

A: You see, that is what I mean.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I saved all those children. Don't you get it?

Q: Yes, I think I am getting it...

Dave.

 

[Granville57]

Adhering to the one-word principle, one of the following may have to be stricken from the list:

Growth hormone
Cortisone
EPO
Steroids
Testosterone

 

[Granville57]

Well this is interesting. While Googling an entirely different angle, I stumbled upon this NPR story about Armstrong from 2006.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

Interesting little tidbit at the end.

The case involving all this sworn testimony grew out of a lawsuit Armstrong filed in 2004. He sued a company, called SCA, that had promised in a contract to pay Armstrong a $5 million bonus if he won his sixth straight Tour de France in 2004. He did win, but SCA withheld the bonus after new doping allegations against Armstrong surfaced that same year. A panel of arbitrators ultimately ruled in Armstrong's favor. SCA was forced to pay the $5 million bonus, plus $2.5 million more. SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written, and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated by using banned substances.

But Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman says the outcome had everything to do with doping. "Had they concluded that Lance Armstrong had cheated, we would not be in possession of a $7.5 million award," said Herman. "The issue, and the proof related to Armstrong's use or non-use of performance-enhancing drugs was the controlling issue in the case."

Some things, ya' just can't make up.

 

[thehog]

And to put a finer point on it, we can anticipate something like this:

Q: When you were on the Oprah show, did you state <insert any one of many statements here>

A: Who?

Q: Here, let me replay a section of the interview for you.

A: Oh, yes, Oprah. I thought you said something else.

Q: Back to my question, in this segment right here you state...

A: You see, that is what I mean.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I saved all those children. Don't you get it?

Q: Yes, I think I am getting it...

Dave.

Correct.

Or;

Q. Did you dope?

A. I didn't do anything that any other rider in the top 100 wasn't doing.

Q. Yes or No please, did you dope?

A. The question is more complex. Please be more specific. When and where and on what date please.

Q. Did you dope to win a stage of the Tour?

A. I need a date please.

Q. I don't have exact dates of the stages.

A. Then it's impossible to answer the question.

Q. Did you dope during your career?

A. Which career?

 

[D-Queued]

Correct.

Or;

Q. Did you dope?

A. I didn't do anything that any other rider in the top 100 wasn't doing.

Q. Yes or No please, did you dope?

A. The question is more complex. Please be more specific. When and where and on what date please.

Q. Did you dope to win a stage of the Tour?

A. I need a date please.

Q. I don't have exact dates of the stages.

A. Then it's impossible to answer the question.

Q. Did you dope during your career?

A. Which career?

A: I've never failed a doping test

Q: What about the six positives for EPO, the Cortisone positive and the TdS positive.

A: 1,000 tests and never a positive

Q: 1,000?

A: 2,000. Prove me wrong. Its my word versus your word, and I like my word better.

...

Dave.

 

[Bosco10]

Yes, you helped me find a video clip I've been searching for since I saw it in 2004!

Lance Chronicles...

Lance giving the OLN camera crew a tour:

Pills & mocking french journalism at 5:40.

Johan flipping out at 6:20 about a TV camera being in the hotel rooms, kicks them out. "TV camera...Fnk...I told them that's not allowed...Funk...That's...Not Allowed..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQMCiVvOd_I

Yeah, I remember watching this a few years back. Of course, Lance was at the height of his scam-glory, everything was in his favor, the French were the bad guys. And funny how he was complaining about "poor sportsmanship" from certain people.

PS- I think Johan's antics may have been an act, like he was following Lance's tightly controlled script.

 

[thehog]

A: I've never failed a doping test

Q: What about the six positives for EPO, the Cortisone positive and the TdS positive.

A: 1,000 tests and never a positive

Q: 1,000?

A: 2,000. Prove me wrong. Its my word versus your word, and I like my word better.

...

Dave.

Considering the panel can only make an award based on a point of law I assume there will be a abundance of these types of responses. Still not sure he'll go ahead with it though. But Lance loves to fight!

Q. Did you collude with the UCI to receive warning on testing?

A. On which date do you refer the alleged collusion?

Q. Mr. Armstrong did you dope or not? You told Ophrah and the entire viewing audience you did, could you please confirm for the record that you doped and cheated to win the Tour de France?

A. Before 2004? Yes perhaps we may have. I don't recall.

 

[Clausfarre]

Yes, you helped me find a video clip I've been searching for since I saw it in 2004!

Lance Chronicles...

Lance giving the OLN camera crew a tour:

Pills & mocking french journalism at 5:40.

Johan flipping out at 6:20 about a TV camera being in the hotel rooms, kicks them out. "TV camera...Fnk...I told them that's not allowed...Funk...That's...Not Allowed..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQMCiVvOd_I

I don't know if "trolling" was a term back then but that was masterful.

 

[Hemassist]

Considering the panel can only make an award based on a point of law I assume there will be a abundance of these types of responses. Still not sure he'll go ahead with it though. But Lance loves to fight!

Q. Did you collude with the UCI to receive warning on testing?

A. On which date do you refer the alleged collusion?

Q. Mr. Armstrong did you dope or not? You told Ophrah and the entire viewing audience you did, could you please confirm for the record that you doped and cheated to win the Tour de France?

A. Before 2004? Yes perhaps we may have. I don't recall.

I'm recalling the old twix commercials, "Need a Minute."

I can't help but imagine Lance stuffing his mouth and then mumbling something on the stand.

 

[frenchfry]

All joking aside, what is amazing is that Armstrong hasn't changed much from 2004. He is still caught up in his lies and manipulations - of course he throws in a bit of forced humility once in a while but only because he was caught.

 

[Benotti69]

All joking aside, what is amazing is that Armstrong hasn't changed much from 2004. He is still caught up in his lies and manipulations - of course he throws in a bit of forced humility once in a while but only because he was caught.

I actually dont find it amazing. The guy is psychotic. He is still trying to manipulate the story using big dope George to get his message out, visiting Bassons and O'Reilly was all BS. Pity they met him.

 

[thehog]

I actually dont find it amazing. The guy is psychotic. He is still trying to manipulate the story using big dope George to get his message out, visiting Bassons and O'Reilly was all BS. Pity they met him.

His behavior is not much different from a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Pretty much par for the course.

 

[Benotti69]

His behavior is not much different from a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Pretty much par for the course.

You know I bet Armstrong has pretty much acted like Weisel in all his actions and decisions.

It would be sweet if Armstrong took him down.

 

[DirtyWorks]

All joking aside, what is amazing is that Armstrong hasn't changed much from 2004. He is still caught up in his lies and manipulations - of course he throws in a bit of forced humility once in a while but only because he was caught.

I think the forced humility is coached.

It seems to me the conflict between his legendary status and his sanction is sloooowly impacting his internal world. Hopefully he'll seek professional help. I kind of doubt he's aware of the conflict.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I think the forced humility is coached.

It seems to me the conflict between his legendary status and his sanction is sloooowly impacting his internal world. Hopefully he'll seek professional help. I kind of doubt he's aware of the conflict.

I do as well and he's not very good at it either.

 

[Clausfarre]

I think the forced humility is coached.

It seems to me the conflict between his legendary status and his sanction is sloooowly impacting his internal world. Hopefully he'll seek professional help. I kind of doubt he's aware of the conflict.

I think he will live comfortably forever with "everybody was doing it" and he will patiently wait for the rest of the world re-accept his accomplishments. What he did to people along the way seems to always be a non-issue.

 

[MarkvW]

I think he will live comfortably forever with "everybody was doing it" and he will patiently wait for the rest of the world re-accept his accomplishments. What he did to people along the way seems to always be a non-issue.

I think his attitude will depend much on how much money he has when the dust settles.

 

[Oldman]

I think he will live comfortably forever with "everybody was doing it" and he will patiently wait for the rest of the world re-accept his accomplishments. What he did to people along the way seems to always be a non-issue.

It the current day image could be preserved, I'd agree. He'd slowly wait until he could find a marketable outlet like Pete Rose. Sell his image, maybe even morph it into some sort of "bad boy". That's if he could stop time right now.

If he has to testify against the rest of the gang, and he will to save whatever money he has; he'll come off as a sell-out vermin. That image will be unshakeable as even a tragic, contrite spin won't undo the fact that everything he did was for a buck.

 

[Clausfarre]

Just like when casinos hire expert cheaters as floor detectives, Armstrong could get hired by USADA or WADA to spot dopers. Definitely full time employment.

 

[Archibald]

Just like when casinos hire expert cheaters as floor detectives, Armstrong could get hired by USADA or WADA to spot dopers. Definitely full time employment.

yeah, the guy most open to bribery and corruption in the past 15years.
can see it now...

LA: hey, we have this control test on you, but we'll keep it quiet for a few thousand $$...