What would you do if you were Lance?

[MarkGreen0]

Recall though, the thread title is What would you do if you were Lance? And I answered that I would cooperate with authorities, and tell the truth about what I had done, as it's the right thing to do.

I think I would try to hold out as long as possible and see who else talks. At the moment it's still just Landis. Whilst it remains that way he has a good chance of beating the rap.

If some other people do come out, however, you might be able to play the card that they are only doing it to get immunity, and take your chances in court. But you'd have to play that one by ear.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

No, Lance has never been sanctioned from an official positive test. But if that's the only thing it takes for some of you to think he doped, or has cheated the system or harmed the sport, then I can only say that's a perfect example of why cycling is in the sorry state it is today regarding the endemic of doping that is ruining the sport and making it a sham to the rest of the world.



Do you really think it's only hard evidence? What if federal investigators, through the power of subpoena, can get several other people to testify against Lance, and their stories all add up? While he may still remain silent through that, he could indeed have a major problem.

Recall though, the thread title is What would you do if you were Lance? And I answered that I would cooperate with authorities, and tell the truth about what I had done, as it's the right thing to do.

RR - You need to learn to use the ignore feature.

I agree completely.

It's hard to say what Lance would do because Lance thrives on conflict, he's oppositional by nature. He might even be enjoying all this in some way even he doesn't fully understand.

 

[stephens]

I think that if you will follow the chain, you will see that Betsy was responding to attacks against her by Armstrong after he found out that she was not going to testify the way he wanted. Maybe you should apply the same standard to Armstrong when it comes to other people?

Good point. Though I think we should apply slightly stronger standards to people who are doing the screwing than to those getting screwed. When one is on the defensive, we can forgive a bit more aggression, I think. So if this really is a case of "how can you be helping SCA deny me my $5mil? i'm going to smear you," well, so be it.

Lance is nasty and dirty, sanction or not. He treats people poorly who disagree with him for what can only be construed as nefarious reasons. Rats inform on other rats. That's how we can tell they're rats.

yeah, but what does any of that have to do with how a guy rides a bicycle in a race? isn't that what this should all be about? can't you see what they've turned sports into? it disgusts me.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Good point. Though I think we should apply slightly stronger standards to people who are doing the screwing than to those getting screwed. When one is on the defensive, we can forgive a bit more aggression, I think. So if this really is a case of "how can you be helping SCA deny me my $5mil? i'm going to smear you," well, so be it.




yeah, but what does any of that have to do with how a guy rides a bicycle in a race? isn't that what this should all be about? can't you see what they've turned sports into? it disgusts me.

It's what he did in order to win a bicycle race (and amass fortunes and start an empire). Sport has always carried extraneous benefits - Olympians in ancient Greece enjoyed riches and high office for winning, for sport is more than just a spectacle - and, as a civilisation, we don't like being lied to or granting people favours if they deceive. This is rapidly becoming less and less about the Tour and about what he might have done with taxpayers money and what he's previously said under oath.

 

[MarkGreen0]

Betsy has gone way beyond her subpoenaed testimony though, in subsequent statements to the press, hasn't she?

Well, to be fair to her, if you're in a dispute with someone famous then you have a lot more routes to get back at them. If we were personal enemies with someone famous then we might end up becoming obsessed with them and using ways to get back at them that we simply would not able to use with some little person. I can see why it would become a much bigger thing in your life, so who are we to judge on that?

The same goes for Armstrong. If we were famous and understood that disputes become bigger things for people we know, and experienced people always wanting a piece of you, we might become quite bitter at those that cross us.

 

[Anonymous]

Good point. Though I think we should apply slightly stronger standards to people who are doing the screwing than to those getting screwed. When one is on the defensive, we can forgive a bit more aggression, I think. So if this really is a case of "how can you be helping SCA deny me my $5mil? i'm going to smear you," well, so be it.

No, I don't think so. One of those people was subpoenaed to testify in court against the other. The one called to testify did not volunteer. The one who was being testified against, as part of the court proceeding, is allowed to address directly or through his attorneys the person who is testifying against him. The one who was being testified against decided to smear her in PUBLIC ALSO. She in turn began to publicly respond. Seems to me one of those people is a bag of douches, and it isn't the person forced to testify.

Armstrong made the decision to act in the manner he has regarding people who didn't follow his PR campaigns. Simeoni testified about Ferrari. Ferrari had more clients than Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong is the only rider to publicly make a demonstration regarding Simeoni though. Everybody else who was a Ferrari client were smart enough to keep their mouths shut and let him be blackballed privately.

Armstrong deserves no sympathy or consideration in any regard. He is a fraud of a sportsman as well as a fraud of a human. Anything he receives in terms punishment at any point in his life is just reaping what you sew.

I can honestly say that if he came out, admitted his doping, and asked forgiveness of those he has hurt by his behavior and doping, I would consider the man worthy of respect and so would many others. That will not happen because he does not have the character to act honestly. His wins and life are built on lies, and narcissism is virtually impossible to overcome. I always hold out hope for anyone, but I have very little for him.

 

[Race Radio]

I think I would try to hold out as long as possible and see who else talks. At the moment it's still just Landis.

Have you been paying attention for the last 10 years? Many people have spoken. Swart, Anderson, Manzano, Andreau, O'Reilly have all talked.

Some fans like to pretend that the information from Landis happened in a vacuum, but it actually was just backed up what we already knew.

 

[MarkGreen0]

TFF, but if we were to put ourselves in Armstrong's shoes, as the thread subject asks us too, he was not just a customer of Dr Ferrari, but also a very good and loyal friend.

If you saw somebody trying to put your good friend in jail, would you be angry about it too?

It's quite easy to see everything in terms of rules and legal processes, but honour, loyalty and friendship don't always follow neat little lines.

 

[MarkGreen0]

Have you been paying attention for the last 10 years? Many people have spoken. Swart, Anderson, Manzano, Andreau, O'Reilly have all talked.

Some fans like to pretend that the information from Landis happened in a vacuum, but it actually was just backed up what we already knew.

Are they in the statue of limitations? And have they come forward now?

If I was Armstrong I would keep denying and wait and see how that pans out or if they have anything solid to go on.

 

[santacruz]

I'd hide over at Ted Nugents Texas safari ranch and get loaded every day while hunting water buffalo with a bow and arrow??

 

[HL2037]

I'd hide over at Ted Nugents Texas safari ranch and get loaded every day while hunting water buffalo with a bow and arrow??

Finally something constructive on this thread.

 

[R.0.t.O]

If I were Lance, I'd retire and go live on a ranch somewhere with my millions of $. Take the Ullrich approach and just walk away and live a quiet life. Give up Tour 2010 as an impossible dream. Much like with Ulli I suspect that a lot of people will be satisfied with him just clearing off and not flaunting his fraud.

Judging by Retirement 1.0 this doesn't seem particularly likely. He will plough on ahead until he smacks into a wall somewhere. This is a man who has had all shame extracted and replaced with extra ego. He'll find a way to be at the Tour, he'll find a way to be fairly competitive, and he'll find some way to keep on annoying us for years to come.

 

[bobs nob]

I wonder if he was this angry when he found out Santa Claus was not real?

WTF are you talking about?

You feckers won't stop hatin', will ya?

 

[Digger]

If I were Lance, i'd try hook up with the other Olsen twin before Bubba becomes my boyfriend. But that's just me. Others would just go live on the ranch.

 

[Race Radio]

Betsy has gone way beyond her subpoenaed testimony though, in subsequent statements to the press, hasn't she? And how did SCA ever come up with the idea of calling her as a witness in the first place? Somebody spoke out of turn about something that was none of their business or SCA wouldn't have known about this alleged hospital room "confession" in the first place.

Betsy kept quite for almost 10 years before she was compelled to testify. Since then Lance has consistently disparaged her, publicly and privately, because she would not lie under oath. Meanwhile Betsy has had very limited interaction with the media, despite Armstrong's claims of her "Blogging 24/7"

 

[Anonymous]

If I were Lance, I would practice saying "Yes Bubba, I will rub your feet. You can be papa again tonight just like always."

 

[Race Radio]

random troll babble

No surprisingly you ignored my question. You claimed

No but Ullrich's DNA did match bags found in Puerto, and his bank records seemed to indicate payment to Fuentes.

He retired, settled, and the prosecution was finally called off based on that retirement.

I think it is fairly safe to assess that as proveable involvement in doping.

Please explain to us how the chain of custody is a huge issue for you in the case of Armstrong's 99 samples but you ignore the far greater chain of custody issues with Ulrich?

 

[MarkGreen0]

Betsy kept quite for almost 10 years before she was compelled to testify. Since then Lance has consistently disparaged her, publicly and privately, because she would not lie under oath.

From Armstrong's shoes, it must have felt like a great betrayal. She could have used the ol 'can't remember' that Frankie used when asked if he had ever seen Armstrong dope. But she chose not to.

I know I would be very annoyed.

Meanwhile Betsy has had very limited interaction with the media, despite Armstrong's claims of her "Blogging 24/7"

That is subjective. It would be interesting to know if she has ever turned anything down. She's been happy to go on a TV documentary and I have seen her join in online discussions on the side of people that deeply dislike Armstrong and want to ruin his career. I don't think Armstrong is mistaken to believe she has it in for him.

 

[Race Radio]

From Armstrong's shoes, it must have felt like a great betrayal. She could have used the ol 'can't remember' that Frankie used when asked if he had ever seen Armstrong dope. But she chose not to.

Ahhh yes, the "Betsy should have committed perjury" Troll. Which one of your multiple banned usernames did you first come up with that gem? Was it Arbiter? Next will be the "Frontal lobe development" troll and the "Pro Cyclist don't use Cortisone".

You need to crawl out of the basement sometime and stop this garbage.

 

[SpartacusRox]

What do we expect Lance to do? If we accept that he has doped where can he go from here? I have no time for the guy but I do wonder what we expect him to do other than deny, deny, deny.

I think he should just stick to his guns and that is what he will do. At the end of the day, he who alleges must prove. Lance doesn't need to disprove anything. He will no doubt just reiterate the fact that he has never been busted, and regardless of the petty semantics bandied around on here regarding the number of times he has been tested, the reality is...it is a lot.

Obviously if proof begins to emerge he will be in a different position but nothing much has been presented yet though it is early days. If the fed investigation does not come up with a prima facie case then the whole thing will probably come to very little.

 

[Anonymous]

If I were Lance, i'd try hook up with the other Olsen twin before Bubba becomes my boyfriend. But that's just me. Others would just go live on the ranch.

I don't know man, I might expand my search on that front. There still have to be millions of women who look pretty much like his mother. He is going to have to pick up the pace a bit if he wants to get with them in a family way...especially considering he might go to prison and all.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Have you been paying attention for the last 10 years? Many people have spoken. Swart, Anderson, Manzano, Andreau, O'Reilly have all talked.

Some fans like to pretend that the information from Landis happened in a vacuum, but it actually was just backed up what we already knew.

The issue with the people that you mention above is that the ground has already been well traversed and it is unlikely that it will be revisited, not least because several of them have moved on and would want no further part in it all.

It is not a case, for me anyway, of information in a vacuum. It is a case of evidence. There are two investigations here. One a criminal investigation and the others the usual internal investigations. The federal investigation will require a high degree of proof that goes beyond witness allegations. We have no idea of whether that degree of proof will be found in order that a prima facie case can be taken. Time will tell but until then all comment is pure speculation. With regards to the second set of investigations, my pick is that there will be little appetite for witnesses to come forward and wade into the legal morass that will undoubtably ensue, and I am talking far wider than just Armstrong here.

I am sure that there will be several on here that will tell me I am wrong but time will be the judge of that not the 'tight five' on here.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I don't know man, I might expand my search on that front. There still have to be millions of women who look pretty much like his mother. He is going to have to pick up the pace a bit if he wants to get with them in a family way...especially considering he might go to prison and all.

You really need to move on from your total LA fixation. The only difference between you and those you regularly accusing of being trolls, is that you are at opposite ends of the trolling spectrum. A troll is a troll mate and you excell at it. This post of yours is a prime example.

 

[Race Radio]

The issue with the people that you mention above is that the ground has already been well traversed and it is unlikely that it will be revisited, not least because several of them have moved on and would want no further part in it all.

I would disagree, it has not been well traveled but ignored. The general public, and the judiciary, are likely to have little knowledge of the vast amount of evidence of Armstrong's doping.

While I can see why you hope that all previous information is ignore any good investigator would explore all avenues.

 

[stephens]

Betsy kept quite for almost 10 years before she was compelled to testify.

If this is true, how did SCA find out about the conversation that she supposedly heard in the first place? Frankie? None of the other people in the room testified that they heard what Frankie and Betsy said they did. Though the rep from Oakley told Lemond she did hear it, but she denied it in testimony. In other words, it seems unlikely anyone but Betsy/Frankie told SCA about the conversation because none of them even said it ever took place.

If they had said nothing ahead of time, I see no reason they would ever have been subpoenaed to give depositions in the first place.