Phil Liggert claims Federal investigators paid people to lie about Armstrong

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
well lets be honest, if Lance didnt bully people into submission, he would fool them into believing the BS
 
Sep 6, 2012
65
0
0
"I was inclined (to think) surely he doesn’t dope, but now I look a fool, to be quite frank," Liggett told The Daily Telegraph from London.
"Quite clearly he has had a program going, with all the other guys.
I am like everybody else. I had no idea such an in-depth drug scheme was taking place.
I spent many hours with Armstrong over the years, but only at functions, doing things for him like MC-ing his cancer events.
I wouldn’t call Lance a friend because you can’t get that close to him. But I really thought he was clean, and in 2003, he actually told me to my face, in his own room. So obviously I am devastated."
and yet in the same conversation:
"I feel beyond a shadow of a doubt Cadel Evans won a clean Tour de France.
That was a good race and a real race."
Unbelievable lack of logic.
I'm not going to cast aspersion on Cadel one way or the other but why would you do exactly the same thing that destroyed your credibility completely?
Someone has definitely left the gate open in the top paddock there.
Oh and as for the:
Liggett told a cycling website this week were it not for the fact he’d signed contracts to commentate through to 2016, the scandal was so depressing he would have walked away from cycling.
Give me a break. It's called resigning.

EDIT: perhaps this thread should be combined with the already existing one with existing comment on the same interview?
 
Good comment over there :

For heaven sake, you were there ; at the races, at the news conferences and you knew nothing? It's solid evidence is reported in l'Equipe, Kimmage and Walsh asked the questions, you heard other experienced Tour commentators laugh disbelievingly at his sudden climbing improvement in the 1999 tour, you saw what he and the UCI did to Bordy and the AFLD when their testing was getting too close for his comfort. I could fill a page of what I knew (from 1999 on) and I'm only a fan living 16,000 kilometers away from France. How much are you being paid for your "expert" commentary? I could excuse your ignorance if I hadn't had to listen to your sycophantic promotion, masquerading as unbiased commentary, of a cyclist and a team that Blind Freddy could see was on the juice.
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
No, I feel sad about it too. I don't think he's a bad or malicious person, his voice still brings back memories of Indurain and Ullrich in the Tour, I just think he was taken in by Lance, and he just seems like a beaten man now, sad. I understand why, but there is so much malice in the clinic that is way OTT. Apart from Lance and the clowns at the UCI, I can't see why anyone else should be subject to the levels of vitriol thrown around in here. I mean, JV and Millar arehardly deserving of the spite thrown at them. Opinions yes, bile no. IMHO!
 
Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
Phil didn't need Mr Armstrong to make a fool of him, his commentary has become so erratic and inaccurate that he seems to be doing a good job of it on his own. We haven't heard from Mr Sherwin either.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
samerics said:
No, I feel sad about it too. I don't think he's a bad or malicious person, his voice still brings back memories of Indurain and Ullrich in the Tour, I just think he was taken in by Lance, and he just seems like a beaten man now, sad. I understand why, but there is so much malice in the clinic that is way OTT. Apart from Lance and the clowns at the UCI, I can't see why anyone else should be subject to the levels of vitriol thrown around in here. I mean, JV and Millar arehardly deserving of the spite thrown at them. Opinions yes, bile no. IMHO!
coudnt agree more - there are times now I wish I never seen this place

I guess whoever said ignorance is bliss had a point :(
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
another rat leaving the ship after making a few bob on the back of the myth.

These are the people Armstrong referred to when he said 'he has done to much good for too many people', but now these rats are trying to save face by pretending they were fooled.

Hope Ligget's reputation is firmly sealed to Armstrongs.
 
Liggett is even more despicable for using the irresponsible and apologists argument that everyone was doing the same, we know from Vaughters and Livingston and now Hamilton that it's not true and obviously if Ullrich had been doing the same stuff as Dopestring he would have crushed him silly.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Lance Armstrong is the biggest con artist PERIOD, he is calculated, manipulative, sweet talking con artist

you cant pick and choose who he conned to suit your arguments
 
AussieEdge said:
Lance Armstrong is the biggest con artist PERIOD, he is calculated, manipulative, sweet talking con artist

you cant pick and choose who he conned to suit your arguments
Anyone conned by Armstrong has been begging to be conned. So gullible, waiting, begging, for their savior to come along. Like religion, opiate for the masses. C'mon, the guy does not have a sincere bone in his body.
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
veganrob said:
Anyone conned by Armstrong has been begging to be conned. So gullible, waiting, begging, for their savior to come along. Like religion, opiate for the masses. C'mon, the guy does not have a sincere bone in his body.
Ah, the benefit of hindsight..... Come on, the past decade has pulled lots of secrets, but let's not pretend that we had a deep understanding of the depth of it back in 1999 as we have now, that's bs... I think most of us wanted to believe that a guy who nearly died from cancer came back thinner and utterly focused on winning the Tour. It ended up badly, and we all know him for the horrible wretch that he is, but we knew nothing at the time, stop peering down your nose as though you knew all along.
 
samerics said:
... I mean, JV and Millar arehardly deserving of the spite thrown at them. Opinions yes, bile no. IMHO!
There are a number of people who will not believe how thoroughly rotten Pro Cycling is until the doping stories are finally told by anti-doping authorities. You seem like one of them. Why do you have to wait for so long while the sport's actors are mocking you? It's entertainment wrestling at this point.

To be fair to JV, his story is much more nuanced unlike the UCI/Armstrong fraud. His team has clearly benefitted from the UCI telling riders to gear down.
 
samerics said:
Ah, the benefit of hindsight..... Come on, the past decade has pulled lots of secrets, but let's not pretend that we had a deep understanding of the depth of it back in 1999 as we have now, that's bs... I think most of us wanted to believe that a guy who nearly died from cancer came back thinner and utterly focused on winning the Tour. It ended up badly, and we all know him for the horrible wretch that he is, but we knew nothing at the time, stop peering down your nose as though you knew all along.
Nobody, knew the depth of what LA would turn into. You are certainly right about that. But you also made my argument, "people wanted to believe".
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
There are a number of people who will not believe how thoroughly rotten Pro Cycling is until the doping stories are finally told by anti-doping authorities. You seem like one of them. Why do you have to wait for so long while the sport's actors are mocking you?

Why do we have to wait for the allegations that have been around for so long that I'm an old man now? Simple inference was overwhelming just a few years after the Internet's social impact was felt.

To be fair to JV, his story is much more nuanced unlike the UCI/Armstrong fraud. His team has clearly benefitted from the UCI telling riders to gear down.
I disagree, I'm sure it goes deep, but people on this forum have one agenda and I'm sure that most of them aren't currently working within pro cycling. Do you honestly think that they would have any chance of saying what is said in here and continue to work? If someone makes a point by nuance and tactics and it achieves a worthy result then I'm all for it, but it won't be achieved by going in all guns blazing. IMHO!
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
veganrob said:
Nobody, knew the depth of what LA would turn into. You are certainly right about that. But you also made my argument, "people wanted to believe".
Of course they did, but if you have no reason not to at the time then you have no point! That's where the hindsight comes in :)
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
veganrob said:
Anyone conned by Armstrong has been begging to be conned. So gullible, waiting, begging, for their savior to come along. Like religion, opiate for the masses. C'mon, the guy does not have a sincere bone in his body.
Your opinion is sadly misdirected.

There are many many good trusting people who have, even until now, given him the benefit of the doubt. A little or a lot gullible, maybe, or maybe just not that close to the story, but good people who took him on face value. As one should, right? They deserve our support and understanding, not derision.

And then there are the deviants who knowingly shared in his agenda. They are the villains, not the folk who trusted.

And then there are the hindsight know it alls... And I could also easily be one of them by the way. But even if I were I don't need to declare it, and derise those who didn't see it early.
 
I am not deriding those people. It is human nature I suppose. And it is kinda sad that people have to look for that "saviour" for lack of a better word. I may have come across too strongly in my opinion. I just never bought any of it. Doesn't make me better. I never claimed that.
My real anger is directed at Armstrong.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY