The Lance Deposition Tapes (Complete Testimony Now Available)

[Anonymous]

With all due respect to you Dr. and RR, I am I suspect that once agin "cancer" will be the ultimate shield for LA and the masses will not care because of all the "good he has done". As I have said before on this forum, LA and his handlers have worked this scam really well.

I think this article probably says a lot about what the masses think, not what those of us on the The Clinic now to be the truth.

This writer's logic is fairly pathetic, but it is what it is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6135037

yes, LA has worked that really well in the past, but the past is, well, the past.

stories that previously slid off are starting to stick, you don't have to be a cycling fanatic anymore to have heard about it. LA wanted everyone to know who he is. guess what? he got his wish -- they do, warts and all.

do they care? like you or i or any of us in the Clinic? likely not... and certainly not as passionately because they are not fans who care about sport -- like the woman who wrote the article. many are grateful (again, like the author) for the attention LA has brought to cancer and that won't change.

however, i do not believe the stink will ever leave LA again. people know, more or less, what he has done. they can choose to ignore it, but they never will forget it.

Lance isn't clean anymore, in anybody's eyes. he never will be again.

(my mother is proof of that!)

the fact that this woman is willfully trying to forget and writing about it -- almost as if to convince herself she's correct in her thinking even as she knows it's wrong is proof as well.

Lance has lost.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

With all due respect to you Dr. and RR, I am I suspect that once agin "cancer" will be the ultimate shield for LA and the masses will not care because of all the "good he has done". As I have said before on this forum, LA and his handlers have worked this scam really well.

I think this article probably says a lot about what the masses think, not what those of us on the The Clinic now to be the truth.

This writer's logic is fairly pathetic, but it is what it is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6135037

By in large I agree with everything you said, with the exception of the conclusion.

The "it is what it is" is actually the flaw in the writers piece - he writes:

If he's poured himself into his foundation as a way to alleviate the guilt in his heart, then so be it.

.... that's a big "if".

Armstrong is now fair game and that will erode even further with the word indictment, and expect a lot of digging in to exactly what he has done for the foundation and to enrich himself.

 

[BroDeal]

yes, LA has worked that really well in the past, but the past is, well, the past.

stories that previously slid off are starting to stick, you don't have to be a cycling fanatic anymore to have heard about it. LA wanted everyone to know who he is. guess what? he got his wish -- they do, warts and all.

do they care? like you or i or any of us in the Clinic? likely not... and certainly not as passionately because they are not fans who care about sport -- like the woman who wrote the article. many are grateful (again, like the author) for the attention LA has brought to cancer and that won't change.

however, i do not believe the stink will ever leave LA again. people know, more or less, what he has done. they can choose to ignore it, but they never will forget it.

Lance isn't clean anymore, in anybody's eyes. he never will be again.

(my mother is proof of that!)

the fact that this woman is willfully trying to forget and writing about it -- almost as if to convince herself she's correct in her thinking even as she knows it's wrong is proof as well.

Lance has lost.

+1

Armstrong will become the Pete Rose of cycling. While people acknowledge Rose's baseballs stats, he is universally known as a dirtbag. Rose spent years lying about not betting on baseball. He continued lying even after the public knew he was lying. The lies now define his public persona. When people want to be nice, they brush aside his lies by saying Rose has always been a hustler. Everyone understands that what "hustler" really means when describing Rose is that he would chisel his own mother out of a couple of nickels.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

It is the only thing they know. Expect the broken record of "I have done a lot of good" over and over. This babble will appear increasingly pathetic when it becomes clear that in fact he has not "done a lot of good" but has paid for a lot of jet fuel and lap dances.

This reminds me of those rare instances when a supposed distinguished military officer is exposed as a fraud. Some fella on with a book, on a speaking circuit with his medals, who never served, never did anything.

It insults the "real" warriors, men and women who lost their lives for something bigger than themselves. It insults those who were taken by the sham, it is as low a thing as there is.

When the cancer community wake up and see that their inspiration was found in a drug-induced liar, the lash-back will be harsh and severe. Very.

It is a severe violation of trust. They trusted what he'd been saying all these years. Any excuse that he was "doing it for them, to fight cancer" will be an empty echo.

Once that community comes to terms with how far they;d been taken for a ride, he will really feel the fury of true indignation.

 

[Oldman]

+1

Armstrong will become the Pete Rose of cycling. While people acknowledge Rose's baseballs stats, he is universally known as a dirtbag. Rose spent years lying about not betting on baseball. He continued lying even after the public knew he was lying. The lies now define his public persona. When people want to be nice, they brush aside his lies by saying Rose has always been a hustler. Everyone understands that what "hustler" really means when describing Rose is that he would chisel his own mother out of a couple of nickels.

The distinct difference is that Lance is chiselling the community at large by wrapping himself in the cloak of Livestrong. I have a feeling that will be stripped away before this investigation is done. Lance won't be able to sign posters in the mall at Vegas like Pete does.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1

Armstrong will become the Pete Rose of cycling. While people acknowledge Rose's baseballs stats, he is universally known as a dirtbag. Rose spent years lying about not betting on baseball. He continued lying even after the public knew he was lying. The lies now define his public persona. When people want to be nice, they brush aside his lies by saying Rose has always been a hustler. Everyone understands that what "hustler" really means when describing Rose is that he would chisel his own mother out of a couple of nickels.

Actually it's going to be worse than that...... as I have no idea who Peter Rose is.

Armstrong, through his own promotion - has become a global name, his name will be mentioned in the same breath as Ben Johnson and Marion Jones.

 

[hiccuphell]

Now im no body language expert, but clip 5, 35 seconds in when he says that Frankie Andreau lied 100%.

Watch Lances head. As he says Frankie lied he shakes his head. You dont need to be a body language expert to know Lance lied at that moment.

In clip 6 early on he says a couple of known truths, and with all of them, he nods as he speaks.

I saw LA's recorded deposition in its entirety a few years ago. It was long and obviously much has been left out because, I would guess they were dry and boring in many spots. What was amusing to me while listening to the Lemond/Mcllvain tape, around the 28:00 mark, is when Stephanie describes LA as a liar and how she always knows hes lying when he sucks his cheeks in and clears his throat before a lie. There were a few clear instances in the full deposition where LA does this. I wish I still had it/them or that the full version will be released.

GL, SM tape: http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

 

[The Hitch]

Really indeed - from the NYT
"Frankie Andreu, once Armstrong’s close friend and roommate, testified that he never knew if Armstrong was doping. But once, he testified, he saw Armstrong sorting “little round pills” on his bed before a race. “He talked about that he would take these at different parts during the race,” Andreu said under oath, adding that he did not know what the pills were. Armstrong testified that they were caffeine."


The 'fun blood doping parties' wouldn't have started until after 2001 when EPO was detectable.


No - he didn't:
"Neither rider ever tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, but both said they felt as if they had to take EPO to make the Tour team in 1999. Andreu would not say specifically when he took the drug..."

Wow. Watching Masserati destroy other peoples posts with such cool and poise and clear quotations is quite impressive.


I will say however in response to this

The 'masses' believe Lance is "nice and reasonable"? As RR has already pointed out the halo has already slipped and it is noticeable that his recent retirement was meant with a deafening silence.

'

that i think the reason LAs recent retirement was met with so little hubub was because it was his 2nd retirement, and more to the point because he had already had 2 other retirements of a sort in a last year which were covered in the press.

The first being his retirement from the TDF which got a lot of coverage and for many his retirement from the Tdf was all that mattered. the second being his retirement from non US racing at the TDU just a few weeks ago. THis also got coverage. I know local newspapers here which dont even cover the Tour of Britain which had a note in the sports section that Armstrong had retired after coming 60 something in the TDU.

After all that its not surprising that the most recent retirement - a simple statement got far less coverage. The others got a lot of coverage for him.

 

[Polish]

The 'masses' believe Lance is "nice and reasonable"? As RR has already pointed out the halo has already slipped and it is noticeable that his recent retirement was meant with a deafening silence.

'We' might not have much influence in changing that but you can be sure the masses will listen to a Federal court.

The "masses" do not care much for retirements 2.0
Michael Jordan's retirement 2.0 was a snoozer.

And the "masses" certainly will not care when Lance gets Indicted.
Sure, there wil be a lot of attention for a bit. With equal measures of "WTF - what a waste of money" and "Lance is a heinous hienous devil man"
But 2 weeks later, heck 1 week later, the "masses" will not care.

And when Lance is exonerated in court many years down the road. the "masses" will not care but for only a very short time again.

"oh, but Lance's Legacy will be tarnished boo"
Seriously, the "masses' do not care.

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

His arrogance screams out from his unbuttoned shirt. No need to open his mouth to communicate his disrespect for the institution or the process. No. He screams at them: "I am better than you". "I can dress however I want". "Watch me flash my unbuttoned cuffs". "Look at my bare, shaved chest." "I am Lance."

Dave.

Watching his rather causual taking of the oath I'm almost sure you can make out him mutting under his breath "yeah, yeah, where's my $5 million already!!!".

 

[D-Queued]

It is the only thing they know. Expect the broken record of "I have done a lot of good" over and over. This babble will appear increasingly pathetic when it becomes clear that in fact he has not "done a lot of good" but has paid for a lot of jet fuel and lap dances.

I dunno. I got the message.

Every time I think of Lance, I think of cancer. The message is spreading faster than the disease.

Dave.

 

[patricknd]

Personally I'll be glad to watch LA just fade into obscurity. Best punishment I could see for him would be to see him bankrupt and living in a singlewide on some dirt lane living on Maddog 20/20 and talking to himself.

then he'd be your neighbor

 

[pedaling squares]

Actually it's going to be worse than that...... as I have no idea who Peter Rose is.

Armstrong, through his own promotion - has become a global name, his name will be mentioned in the same breath as Ben Johnson and Marion Jones.

OT perhaps, but I think the Pete Rose comparison is apt. In the US, Pete Rose was a real hero. He was the everyday superstar who set new records. Average Joe related to him in a way he could not relate to more polished star players. In the same way some North American sports fans related to Armstrong when they could not relate to the tour winners with funny sounding names. Our guy who won their big race on their turf. Over and over and over again. Armstrong spoke like 'us' and acted like 'us' (on camera anyway). Ben Johnson was a huge story in 1988, especially here, but is really just another doper from a fringe sport we watch every four years. Marion Jones too. Pete Rose, now there was a fallen hero. The everyman's superstar who was exposed not only as a cheat, but a blatant and repeat liar. A lot of people were really shocked and hurt, not by him betting on baseball games, but by his lying. Our guy treating us like fools. And that could easily happen to Armstrong. Our hero who overcame incredible odds, won more than anyone else, and raised money to save our lives..... has cheated, lied to us for decades, used drugs intended to save lives for profit and to further his personal agenda, and has received personal benefit while raising 'awareness'?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Oh, 'Squares; It' even more sublime than that. Nicely said.

 

[TexPat]

OT perhaps, but I think the Pete Rose comparison is apt. In the US, Pete Rose was a real hero. He was the everyday superstar who set new records. Average Joe related to him in a way he could not relate to more polished star players. In the same way some North American sports fans related to Armstrong when they could not relate to the tour winners with funny sounding names. Our guy who won their big race on their turf. Over and over and over again. Armstrong spoke like 'us' and acted like 'us' (on camera anyway). Ben Johnson was a huge story in 1988, especially here, but is really just another doper from a fringe sport we watch every four years. Marion Jones too. Pete Rose, now there was a fallen hero. The everyman's superstar who was exposed not only as a cheat, but a blatant and repeat liar. A lot of people were really shocked and hurt, not by him betting on baseball games, but by his lying. Our guy treating us like fools. And that could easily happen to Armstrong. Our hero who overcame incredible odds, won more than anyone else, and raised money to save our lives..... has cheated, lied to us for decades, used drugs intended to save lives for profit and to further his personal agenda, and has received personal benefit while raising 'awareness'?

Oh, 'Squares; It' even more sublime than that. Nicely said.

+1
I remember vividly the way my younger brother-- who actually likes baseball (YAWN)--idolized Pete Rose. He was a hometown hero/all-American kind of guy found on cereal boxes and television commercials. His image was very well prepared.
Then came the fall.

 

[Yeahright]

The 'masses' believe Lance is "nice and reasonable"? As RR has already pointed out the halo has already slipped and it is noticeable that his recent retirement was meant with a deafening silence.

'We' might not have much influence in changing that but you can be sure the masses will listen to a Federal court.

Well that remains to be seen. I don't know if you have been at the ToC or the TDU in recent years but the Lance lovers outnumbered the Lance haters by about 1000 to 1.

As you say that may change depending on the outcome of federal court proceedings (if they ever eventuate. I don't have a lot of faith in the integrity of the US justice system). Or Lance my play the victim card which may or may not be swallowed by the great unwashed. Will be interesting to see what unfolds.

 

[Yeahright]

With all due respect to you Dr. and RR, I am I suspect that once agin "cancer" will be the ultimate shield for LA and the masses will not care because of all the "good he has done". As I have said before on this forum, LA and his handlers have worked this scam really well.

I think this article probably says a lot about what the masses think, not what those of us on the The Clinic now to be the truth.

This writer's logic is fairly pathetic, but it is what it is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6135037

Well actually the writer is not applying logic as such, he is viewing the whole Armstrong affair through the lens of his own subjective bias and he is quite open about that.

It is actually a very valid article because it does not try to be something that it is not. He is not assessing the evidence and coming to a conclusion, he is merely giving his own subjective opinion.

This is an important point because I have the feeling that he is merely expressing the feelings of the majority of casual Armstrong observers and those who are really disinterested in cycling per se.

I am sure that there are many on the forum who will argue the actual integrity of Armstrong's Livestrong motives but their opinions are also only subjective and biased towards the stance they take towards him in general.

I think time will show this article to be pretty much on the money. Guilty or not guilty, the masses will rationalise away his guilt against the good they have perceived he has done through his foundation. Barry Bonds and others never had that fall back and so did not engender any compassion.

 

[sartain]

Well actually the writer is not applying logic as such, he is viewing the whole Armstrong affair through the lens of his own subjective bias and he is quite open about that.

It is actually a very valid article because it does not try to be something that it is not. He is not assessing the evidence and coming to a conclusion, he is merely giving his own subjective opinion.

This is an important point because I have the feeling that he is merely expressing the feelings of the majority of casual Armstrong observers and those who are really disinterested in cycling per se.

I am sure that there are many on the forum who will argue the actual integrity of Armstrong's Livestrong motives but their opinions are also only subjective and biased towards the stance they take towards him in general.

I think time will show this article to be pretty much on the money. Guilty or not guilty, the masses will rationalise away his guilt against the good they have perceived he has done through his foundation. Barry Bonds and others never had that fall back and so did not engender any compassion.

I suspect that you are dead on the money.

http://www.youraustinmarathon.com/

 

[cprior]

used drugs intended to save lives for profit and to further his personal agenda

That's a powerful spin. Could hold up against the bloody do-gooder mantra from LA camp.

 

[JPM London]

Well that remains to be seen. I don't know if you have been at the ToC or the TDU in recent years but the Lance lovers outnumbered the Lance haters by about 1000 to 1.

As you say that may change depending on the outcome of federal court proceedings (if they ever eventuate. I don't have a lot of faith in the integrity of the US justice system). Or Lance my play the victim card which may or may not be swallowed by the great unwashed. Will be interesting to see what unfolds.

...and you could also add that Armstrong excelled in the sport most connected to doping in public perception and so it's far easier to excuse any drugs use than in other sports.

 

[Polish]

That there's a name and law firm attached to this release says a bit about the contemporary view of Lance: all bark, no bite.

Mr. Tristan Zook who works for the law firm of Grey Manrod
I know what a Grey Manrod is, but what is a Tristan Zook?

 

[Granville57]

Of all the entities that would release this stuff, a law firm has to be on the bottom of my list of likely sources.

Precisely.
A meeting of the minds

 

[Oldman]

Well actually the writer is not applying logic as such, he is viewing the whole Armstrong affair through the lens of his own subjective bias and he is quite open about that.

It is actually a very valid article because it does not try to be something that it is not. He is not assessing the evidence and coming to a conclusion, he is merely giving his own subjective opinion.

This is an important point because I have the feeling that he is merely expressing the feelings of the majority of casual Armstrong observers and those who are really disinterested in cycling per se.

I am sure that there are many on the forum who will argue the actual integrity of Armstrong's Livestrong motives but their opinions are also only subjective and biased towards the stance they take towards him in general.

I think time will show this article to be pretty much on the money. Guilty or not guilty, the masses will rationalise away his guilt against the good they have perceived he has done through his foundation. Barry Bonds and others never had that fall back and so did not engender any compassion.

If rumored events related to his "cancer crusade" and his "foundation" are believable this fall back will be gone as well. Fraud is as fraud does.

 

[BotanyBay]

Honesty?
Under oath, Frankie confirmed Betsy’s account. Fine.
Also under oath, Frankie testified that he had no direct evidence or ever witnessed LA dope. Really? He missed all the fun blood doping parties and PED seminars that Landis talked about?
Frankie also said (not under oath) that he only tried EPO once, during the 99 Tour. Frankie raced during the height of the undetectable EPO era
and didn’t use EPO before 99? 4th in the Olympic RR in 96 on white rice and spring water? Sure. Part of Motorola and USPS where doping was mandatory (according to some)?
Frankie picks and chooses his honesty. He’s going to have a hard time convincing people where he’s being honest.

And why are you so interested in this now? Perhaps instigating a little domestic trouble will make you feel better for having had allegations leveled at you "Joey_J"?

 

[Dallas_]

Did Armstrong commit Perjury? Will he serve time for Perjury?

A bit of background and lead up. Mods, if this thread was placed in the generic Armstrong thread, quite possibly and most probably certain posters would trash it.


Now if we wind the clock back to say around July/August 2010 and review opinion from Armstrong supporters
in the Clinic. Overall, my perception was the supporters would deny LA doped. Eg "lots of allegations.
Show me the evidence. The 1999 samples were tampered with. The French hate Americans. Never tested positive"

From the supporters now, the perception to me is they have now softened and accepted he doped, although still passionately backing him on all other points. That is fine.

Moving to the Balco investigation, Marion spent 6 months in the Sin Bin for perjury. Now we have another FDA investigation. Through various media sources, we are lead to believe that Armstrong is one of the prime targets. Will Novitzky go for the jugular on any offense he unearths?

Now I have to admit, I believe Armstrong committed perjury during the SCA case. The opinions of Armstrong supporters are welcome and maybe more interesting.

I could have created a poll, but thought the various opinions would be more interesting!

Juicy morsels from the SCA case presented below the questions:


Did Armstrong commit perjury?


For this offense, will he serve time at the Lodge?



If I may introduce exhibit A1: juicy snips from http://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/L...rong-Testimony


Q. You understand that although we're in the conference room of your lawyers, you are giving testimony as if you are in a court of law.

. Do you understand that?

A. Correct.

Q. And that penalties of perjury attach to this deposition just like they would to a court of law proceeding.

A. Of course.


Q. Okay.But I just want to make sure.It's not that you don't remember whether that -- the Indiana hospital room incident occurred. It affirmatively did not take place.

A. No, it didn't.How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs?

Q. I'm just trying to make sure your testimony is clear.

A. Well, if it can't be any clearer than I've never taken drugs, then incidents like that could never have happened.


Q. Okay.I think it's clear.Let me -- can I ask you some additional questions as a followup on 4 that?

A. Sure.

Q. You have never taken any performance-enhancing drug in connection with your cycling career.

A. Correct.

Q. And that would include any substance that's ever been banned. Is that fair to say?

A. Correct.


cheers to all