Tyler Hamilton confessions/accusations

[Alpe d'Huez]

that article has already been posted about a dozen times in this thread.

Yeah I know, about 12, 31, 45 pages ago, and hardly discussed as you point out.

I eagerly await the Polish & Flicker interview of Lance. And if they can't get Lance himself, maybe they can interview Michael Matts.

 

[Topangarider]

In response to this 60 Minutes outrage, Lance will be interviewed in depth by journalism's premier tag team of Polish and Flicker.

Are those code names for Phil and Paul? Or is Bob one of them?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Fabiani should be writing thank you notes to Landis and Hamilton for giving him so many billable hours.

LOL... Hope Armstrong goes bankrupt on this. He "earned" everything by cheating (worse, getting it from cancer patients), so he shall really suffer.

 

[Polish]

Here is the article by Howard Kurtz of Newsweek, regarding the dynamic between CBS, 60 Minutes, and Armstrong's group. I too hope this is at least discussed some this coming Sunday.

Fabiani, Luskin and Herman are going to have a very difficult time discrediting 60 Minutes. Many, many have tried in the past, and few have ever succeeded much at all. It's quite possibly the most respected journalism in the world.

I think Howard's CNN show "Reliable Sources" on Sunday Morning might be more insightful than CBS's 60 Minutes on Sunday night.

"Reliable Sources" is a panel discussion with point/counterpoint.
Hopefully they will cover this Lance/60Mins story...

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Well Hog, was this the "deal" you talked about? He gives up the dirt AND the medal.



Have to say... good move by Tyler. He's going to be much harder for Lance to assault because of this. Where's the positive? It's probably a negative for him financially (I can't see it helping his current business to be honest). It forced him to give up his most prized possession. And if he lied... he'd go to jail because he did it to a grand jury.

Actually, he didn't give up his most prized possession. He just exchanged his gold medal for it. Tyler's got his dignity back.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

actually, he didn't give up his most prized possession. He just exchanged his gold medal for it. Tyler's got his dignity back.

+1

. . . . .

 

[GoGarmin]

Sports Illustrated and now CBS ... these are major, major media brands in the United States. The former has the most credibility in sports journalism and the latter has the most credibility in television journalism. And we've already had the New York Times and Wall Street Journal running very negative pieces on Armstrong.

It simply doesn't get more credible or more mainstream than that.

 

[Polish]

But Polish, don't you think he's past the point of no return on that one? I mean, after all he's said, a mea culpa at this point?

I do like your conspiracy theory on the medal Tyler giving back is a fake one, that was pretty good!

He is not past the "point of no return" with the people who do not care.
There are many of these people. Millions and millions and millions.
I put myself in that group.
If he did a World Class Mea Culpa - his stock would not go down with this group imo.
Would go up in many cases I bet.

And he is not past the "point of no return" with the people in denial.
But it is getting close.
A World Class Mea Culpa here would have the biggest payoff.
Most would forgive, some would go to the darkside.

Apologies rarely are bad.
They usually pay off.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Tyler looked very out of in the CBS teaser for the 60minutes story. I guess the gravity of the situation has him shocked to the core.

In the letter to his friends and family he said something about “Tanker and I are loving our Boulder life” I guess Tanker is his dog. All I can say is let’s hope that Tanker does not take an unexpected dirt nap like Tugboat did. If that happens someone needs to get to him quick in order to stop the unavoidable melt down this guy will have.



I hope he gets above this and moves along with his life.

Tyler has a lot of friends and support in Boulder. He is in a pretty good place....

I would imagine anyone that has been through the emotional ups and downs that he has would look a bit shell-shocked and fried. Think about your own personal crises and then how you would look and react if interviewed on national tv.

Getting a clean start would be a positive step in the right direction.

 

[VeloCity]

Well may be stating the obvious here, but I guess that's a tacit admission that he doped for the Olympics and that the positive A sample was for real.

 

[velobabee]

i for one, was so excited to see this come down. boulder, tyler, tanker and taylor.
LA you are going down, get your dirty *** out of aspen, colorado like all the rest of the corrupt fraudsters of bansters that have taken over that town. yellow police crime tape surrounding aspen. this is the same thing as these banks taking over this earth with corruption at the highest level. doping and the financial meltdown to depression.

 

[Polyarmour]

I can't believe you are still argueing this point. It's not up to you to define credible. Plenty of people with a lot more dubious CVs than Landis and Hamilton have been credible witnesses in the context of a court case. Of course they're credible.

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you want to believe they're finally telling the truth. Maybe Novitsky has better evidence up his sleeve, maybe he doesn't. What is required is evidence that can't be explained away in any other fashion. Tyler's confession might be cathartic for Tyler but it doesn't mean much for Lance. Even if Tyler's account is believed I don't think he can prove what was in Lance's fridge 12 years ago or what Lance injected.

On another note I find it curious that the lynch mob is now elevating Tyler to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you want to believe they're finally telling the truth. Maybe Novitsky has better evidence up his sleeve, maybe he doesn't. What is required is evidence that can't be explained away in any other fashion. Tyler's confession might be cathartic for Tyler but it doesn't mean much for Lance. Even if Tyler's account is believed I don't think he can prove what was in Lance's fridge 12 years ago or what Lance injected.

On another note I find it curious that the lynch mob is now elevating Tyler to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

Same as your love Armstrong: "Never tested positive", yet he got busted 8 times.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you want to believe they're finally telling the truth. Maybe Novitsky has better evidence up his sleeve, maybe he doesn't. What is required is evidence that can't be explained away in any other fashion. Tyler's confession might be cathartic for Tyler but it doesn't mean much for Lance. Even if Tyler's account is believed I don't think he can prove what was in Lance's fridge 12 years ago or what Lance injected.

On another note I find it curious that the lynch mob is now elevating Tyler to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm enjoying every moment of your attempts to run away from your shadow.

On another note I find it curious that the fanboys are always elevating Lance to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

 

[VeloCity]

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you now want to believe they're finally telling the truth. Maybe Novitsky has better evidence up his sleeve, maybe he doesn't. What is required is evidence that can't be explained away in any other fashion. Tyler's confession might be cathartic for Tyler but it doesn't mean much for Lance. Even if Tyler's account is believed I don't think he can prove what was in Lance's fridge 12 years ago or what Lance injected.

On another note I find it curious that the lynch mob is now elevating Tyler to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

How many "cheating dogs" barking the same bark will it take? We know there's 4 already - Landis, Hamilton, Andreu, and Swart - and those are only the one's that have gone public. No doubt that Novitzky's talked to a lot more people than that, and I doubt anyone is going to perjure themselves to protect Armstrong. And of course that doesn't include the non-riders like O'Reilly and Betsy Andreu and Lemond and Startt etc.

One or two can be dismissed. Eight or nine or ten saying basically the same thing, then it starts to get a little tougher to ignore.

 

[pedaling squares]

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you want to believe they're finally telling the truth.

Yes, you have a good point. Certainly their lies will be considered by anyone weighing their testimony. But their motives for stating those lies and their motives for changing their version of events will also be considered. And I think they had some pretty clear motives for saying that they did not cheat. They appear to have far less to gain by saying that they and Lance Armstrong used PEDs.

Outside of FL and TH there will also be other evidence that may lend weight to their testimony if it provides corroboration. A judge isn't going to consider any one witness' evidence in isolation.

EDIT: Very interested to learn what non-disgraced insiders such as CVV, GH, and JV have to say.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you want to believe they're finally telling the truth. Maybe Novitsky has better evidence up his sleeve, maybe he doesn't. What is required is evidence that can't be explained away in any other fashion. Tyler's confession might be cathartic for Tyler but it doesn't mean much for Lance. Even if Tyler's account is believed I don't think he can prove what was in Lance's fridge 12 years ago or what Lance injected.

On another note I find it curious that the lynch mob is now elevating Tyler to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

It's looking like 'they' are going to prove it.

and in this post, if you substitute the name LANCE for 'Landis and Hamilton' ....I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that LANCE has told lies for years DOES affect HIS credibility.
and elevating LANCE to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

 

[Benotti69]

How many "cheating dogs" barking the same bark will it take? We know there's 4 already - Landis, Hamilton, Andreu, and Swart - and those are only the one's that have gone public. No doubt that Novitzky's talked to a lot more people than that, and I doubt anyone is going to perjure themselves to protect Armstrong. And of course that doesn't include the non-riders like O'Reilly and Betsy Andreu and Lemond and Startt etc.

One or two can be dismissed. Eight or nine or ten saying basically the same thing, then it starts to get a little tougher to ignore.

Dont forget his old family friend Ferarri.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Dont forget his old family friend Ferarri.

... and the 6 positives from the AFLD

 

[cat6cx]

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

Polya, straight up question. Do you believe Lance doped?

 

[MarkvW]

I hate to burst your bubble but the fact that Landis and Hamilton have told lies for years DOES affect their credibility. You don't send a man to prison based on the confessions of liars, even though you want to believe they're finally telling the truth. Maybe Novitsky has better evidence up his sleeve, maybe he doesn't. What is required is evidence that can't be explained away in any other fashion. Tyler's confession might be cathartic for Tyler but it doesn't mean much for Lance. Even if Tyler's account is believed I don't think he can prove what was in Lance's fridge 12 years ago or what Lance injected.

On another note I find it curious that the lynch mob is now elevating Tyler to the status of hero when in fact he is a cheating dog.

And for the record if they can prove Lance cheated he will be an even bigger cheating dog. But they need to prove it.

And Mr. Armstrong lied down with cheating dogs--now he's getting the fleas.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Swart and Andreu are non-disgraced riders. But yes, I'd like to know what everyone says. I'd be surprised if JV, GH, Jemison, and a few others fall on the sword for Lance.

As to the assertion that you don't send a man to prison based on the confession of proven liars, this is simply not true. History has clearly shown that from bank robbers to drug dealers, to murderers and rapists even, have been sent to prison on testimony of "liars", accomplices, convicted felons even. While singular testimony is not always the mitigating factor, eye witness testimony, especially when corroborated in any way, even by other law breakers, has been a highly effective tool in courts over the history of this country. When you start stacking these testimonies up, along with test results, various files of paperwork from bank records to taxes...

 

[VeloCity]

Purely speculation, but by specifically naming Armstrong (among others of course, but obviously Armstrong is the big cheese) so publicly without having substantive material to back up their allegations, you'd think they'd just be setting themselves up for libel/slander suits from the Armstrong crowd. Which makes me wonder if they've come forth knowing that they're back is protected, ie they know that there is substantive material that can be produced to back up their claims? And does Armstrong know it too (or at least suspect it), which is why he's not going after them legally?

 

[stephens]

Same as your love Armstrong: "Never tested positive", yet he got busted 8 times.

Ok, let's not revise history too much... You know quite clearly what Armstrong and his fan boys mean by "never tested positive," and no, it does not include private coded samples attributed to him by a newspaper that were tested not as an enforcement of the rules but merely as a lab experiment (testing of the test). And let's forget the back-dated prescription case for cream - no one's reputation will live or die by something like that anyway.

Failure to really see the difference between that stuff and what people mean when they say "never tested positive" is what leads you guys to brand even people like me "fanboys" when I don't even like the guy and never cared about him one way or another as that approach to the tour and cycling overall (doped or not) never really excited me.

Why can't you recognize as legitimate the position that sporting rules should be enforced as stated in the rules at the time, and that certain cyclists have been tested according to those rules and not proven by those rules (i.e. sanctioned tests) to be guilty of cheating and therefore, life goes on for them. If we have other evidence or speculation that many cyclists are nonetheless doping, then the outrage should be directed towards the sporting authorities for being so easily fooled despite having surprise 24/7/365 access to all the cyclists!

Yes, it's a scandal for Lance that he has gotten away with (as far as UCI is concerned) doping. But it ought to be a bigger scandal for the UCI and other bodies who couldn't catch him in a legit test!

[of course if the bribery charges to cover up a positive test turn out to be provable, then we can shift the blame from the lousy scientific skills of the testing authorities and on to the lousy ethics of the uci officials who took the bribes].

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Ok, let's not revise history too much... You know quite clearly what Armstrong and his fan boys mean by "never tested positive," and no, it does not include private coded samples attributed to him by a newspaper that were tested not as an enforcement of the rules but merely as a lab experiment (testing of the test). And let's forget the back-dated prescription case for cream - no one's reputation will live or die by something like that anyway.

Failure to really see the difference between that stuff and what people mean when they say "never tested positive" is what leads you guys to brand even people like me "fanboys" when I don't even like the guy and never cared about him one way or another as that approach to the tour and cycling overall (doped or not) never really excited me.

Why can't you recognize as legitimate the position that sporting rules should be enforced as stated in the rules at the time, and that certain cyclists have been tested according to those rules and not proven by those rules (i.e. sanctioned tests) to be guilty of cheating and therefore, life goes on for them. If we have other evidence or speculation that many cyclists are nonetheless doping, then the outrage should be directed towards the sporting authorities for being so easily fooled despite having surprise 24/7/365 access to all the cyclists!

Yes, it's a scandal for Lance that he has gotten away with (as far as UCI is concerned) doping. But it ought to be a bigger scandal for the UCI and other bodies who couldn't catch him in a legit test!

[of course if the bribery charges to cover up a positive test turn out to be provable, then we can shift the blame from the lousy scientific skills of the testing authorities and on to the lousy ethics of the uci officials who took the bribes].

Riders got busted for less. One ate a steak, another one didn´t inhale, a 3rd wasn´t even there. So much about that...

P.S.: Why you think Novitsky asked for the "Test-Test"-Positives? Maybe because Ashenden and the Lab-Workers can prove 100% that Epo-Lance is true?