What's the point?

[sniper]

What's the point in insisting he rode clean in 2009/10?

 

[HL2037]

Maybe it has to do with statue of limitation?

 

[Benotti69]

What's the point in insisting he rode clean in 2009/10?

To avoid something. 2005 would make him outside the SOL.

He is allegedly trying to get back into sports so it would appear he is doing what hincapie, Leipheimer et al are doing in the hope he will get his ban reduced.

I reckon it has deeper legal connotations.

 

[sniper]

As far as I can tell all the damage claims (SCA, qui tam, Sunday Times) relate to the 1999-2005 period.

 

[hrotha]

Many possible explanations, from the strictly legal (statue of limitations hasn't run out for that; having his sentence eventually reduced to 8 years and starting in 2005 would be massive) to the more psychological (being on the TdF podum at 38 while clean would have been a massive achievement he could still cling onto publically; it also would suggest he had the raw GT talent and that in a different environment he could have won all those Tours clean. It's possible that he doesn't even consider a transfusion or two to keep his hematocrit stable rather than to raise it above its natural limits as "doping", but as "recovery").

Since his doping in 2009 and 2010 isn't proven to the same degree of certainty as his previous doping, he thinks he might get away with not admitting to it, even though it's of course BS.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Look at the relationships.

The one set of people he protected more than any were the UCI.

i) Denies the donation story
ii) Claims to ride clean after 2008 showing that he is still 'on message to the UCI'

Clear message sent to McQuaid and Verbruggan - I am not going to **** on you. The reason - the UCI probably has the physical/documentary evidence to completely expose him.

UCI says thank you with a very sympathetic response to the Uniballer and they also repeat the no doping since 2006 line.

It is still omerta in cycling and Armstrong and McQuaid are two of the biggest exponents of it.

 

[sniper]

But hasn't it been decided in court already that SOL doesn't apply to Lance? It's why USADA/UCI/OIC were allowed to strip him back to 1998.

Isn't that court decision irreversable?

 

[the asian]

Many possible explanations, from the strictly legal (statue of limitations hasn't run out for that; having his sentence eventually reduced to 8 years and starting in 2005 would be massive) to the more psychological (being on the TdF podum at 38 while clean would have been a massive achievement he could still cling onto publically; it also would suggest he had the raw GT talent and that in a different environment he could have won all those Tours clean. It's possible that he doesn't even consider a transfusion or two to keep his hematocrit stable rather than to raise it above its natural limits as "doping", but as "recovery").

Since his doping in 2009 and 2010 isn't proven to the same degree of certainty as his previous doping, he thinks he might get away with not admitting to it, even though it's of course BS.

This one. The guy thinks he can cut a deal to return to sports from 2013 June.

 

[sniper]

Look at the relationships.

The one set of people he protected more than any were the UCI.

i) Denies the donation story
ii) Claims to ride clean after 2008 showing that he is still 'on message to the UCI'

Clear message sent to McQuaid and Verbruggan - I am not going to **** on you. The reason - the UCI probably has the physical/documentary evidence to completely expose him.

UCI says thank you with a very sympathetic response to the Uniballer and they also repeat the no doping since 2006 line.

It is still omerta in cycling and Armstrong and McQuaid are two of the biggest exponents of it.

I was thinking along these lines.
However,

the UCI probably has the physical/documentary evidence to completely expose him.

If he'd just come clean (about 2009/10 AND about the bribes), I don't see what UCI could have on Lance to retaliate? It seems to me in the current situation Lance could do more damage to UCI than other way round.

Isn't this simply a deal between verbruggen/pat and Team Lance: They return Lance's donation(s), with interests, and in return Lance doesn't snitch on them?

 

[the asian]

Definitely seams to sing the UCI line there.

He even praised the Biological passport

He listens a lot to what other people say.

 

[sniper]

This one. The guy thinks he can cut a deal to return to sports from 2013 June.

I would have thought (but might be wrong) LAnce would have better chances to cut a deal with USADA by coming clean full throttle.

It's already clear that not everybody is buying it.

By lying about 2009/10, he makes himself more vulnerable than he already is.
Should any evidence surface of him doping in 2009/10 (through Ferrari, or Catlin, or I dont know who), that'd be the complete end of Lance (including in public opinion).

 

[the asian]

I would have thought (but might be wrong) LAnce would have better chances to cut a deal with USADA by coming clean full throttle.

It's already clear that not everybody is buying it.

By lying about 2009/10, he makes himself more vulnerable than he already is.
Should any evidence surface of him doping in 2009/10 (through Ferrari, or Catlin, or I dont know who), that'd be the complete end of Lance (including in public opinion).

But that would mean he will banned at least from 2011-2018.

The guys wants to return to action immediately.

OFC it's delusional and senseless but we ll know how sociopath's act.

 

[Turner29]

Obviously, Lance Armstrong's "confession" was very guarded. Clearly, regarding Betsy Andreu, he wanted to steer clear of perjury charges and possible full repayment of money to SCI.

Regarding Statue of Limitations, there are organizational ones pertaining to the USADA and the UCI and legal ones regarding perjury and other crimes. At the very least, USADA rules allow for SOL suspension when an athlete knowingly takes action to prevent discovery. This is also a legal principle that could put Armstrong in deeper trouble than his rather inept legal counsel seems to think.

The UCI was simply playing the SoL game regarding the USADA's position because they are in bed with Armstrong. Forget about the UCI, their relevancy regarding punishment is nil. I think that by claiming to be clean in 2009 and 2010, Armstrong is merely playing the OMERTA game with Fat Pat.

 

[Turner29]

But that would mean he will banned at least from 2011-2018.

The guys wants to return to action immediately.

OFC it's delusional and senseless but we ll know how sociopath's act.

Forget about what Armstrong says about racing. He did not go on Oprah for that.

1) Keep his *** out of jail;
2) Start making real money again;
3) Back in the Limelight.

If Armstrong truly just wanted to race again, he could have worked out a deal with the USADA behind closed doors.

 

[meat puppet]

Definitely seams to sing the UCI line there.

He even praised the Biological passport

He listens a lot to what other people say.

kinda hilarious that precisely his passport is suspicious to the max.

shaameful shi-t.

On topic, I think hrotha has it nailed.

 

[Morbius]

But hasn't it been decided in court already that SOL doesn't apply to Lance? It's why USADA/UCI/OIC were allowed to strip him back to 1998.

The court said it was up to the USADA arbitration panel to decide initially on SoL. However as Armstrong refused to face the arbitration panel the USADA argument that SoL does not apply stood unchallenged.
In theory UCI or WADA could have appealed this, but they decided not to (and in any case why would they?).

 

[eleven]

It's a puzzling claim reminscent of a writ-large version of Landis coming clean but stating he didn't use testosterone when he failed the test.

What would be the point?

 

[rhubroma]

Look at the relationships.

The one set of people he protected more than any were the UCI.

i) Denies the donation story
ii) Claims to ride clean after 2008 showing that he is still 'on message to the UCI'

Clear message sent to McQuaid and Verbruggan - I am not going to **** on you. The reason - the UCI probably has the physical/documentary evidence to completely expose him.

UCI says thank you with a very sympathetic response to the Uniballer and they also repeat the no doping since 2006 line.

It is still omerta in cycling and Armstrong and McQuaid are two of the biggest exponents of it.

On the other hand, he insisted more than once that he's "got no love for the UCI." If the world cycling governing body has got the info to completely expose him, then surely he's got a big, bad can of worms to ruin them.

It therefore seems more motivated to get a back-dated suspension, so he can prepare for the Ironman this year. Not going to happen, which only demonstrates the presumptuous delusion in his mind.

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong is a fool if he thinks going on Oprah is going to reduce his ban. But i think he was trying to fry bigger fish.

 

[Cobblestones]

What's the point in insisting he rode clean in 2009/10?

He rode for team Borat. In the US, the worst which can happen is legal problems. Who knows what the Kazakhs can come up with when you mess with them.

 

[sniper]

On the other hand, he insisted more than once that he's "got no love for the UCI." If the world cycling governing body has got the info to completely expose him, then surely he's got a big, bad can of worms to ruin them.

It therefore seems more motivated to get a back-dated suspension, so he can prepare for the Ironman this year. Not going to happen, which only demonstrates the presumptuous delusion in his mind.

who, within Team Lance, is pulling the strings anyway? doesn't this guy have any sane people around him?

coming clean full-throttle, including wrt UCI, might have restored some of his credit in the eye of the american public, cycling public and USADA. I would have thought that those are the two parties he'd be most interested in having as allies: the people/public and USADA.

but with his new lies he jeopardizes exactly those two allies.

Now what he's left with is a grumpy old Dutchman and a sorry-assed Irishman.

 

[sniper]

He rode for team Borat. In the US, the worst which can happen is legal problems. Who knows what the Kazakhs can come up with when you mess with them.

interesting angle.

 

[the asian]

Armstrong is a fool if he thinks going on Oprah is going to reduce his ban. But i think he was trying to fry bigger fish.

I thought he was practicing his lie. His lie also has to be consistent.

A more unrealistic but wishful scenario is that Lance is willing to cut a deal with USADA to rat Pat/Hein out, but is playing the fool on TV to give a false sense of security to Pat& Hein.

After all, It was Hilarious to see the UCI jumping in glee saying that they have not been implicated though.

What makes it unlikely though, is if it were the case, Lance would have first testified under oath to USADA before giving the Interview.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I was thinking along these lines.
However, If he'd just come clean (about 2009/10 AND about the bribes), I don't see what UCI could have on Lance to retaliate? It seems to me in the current situation Lance could do more damage to UCI than other way round.

Isn't this simply a deal between verbruggen/pat and Team Lance: They return Lance's donation(s), with interests, and in return Lance doesn't snitch on them?

This assumes that the donation and the 2001 test are the limit of the information the UCI has on Armstrong.

I do think it is a lot about omerta. Just like Wiggins won't **** on Armstrong, so Armstrong won't **** on Wiggins, Dertie, Schleck, Frodo etc.

He's not blown up the myth of the biopassport and the UCI - which is key to the whole 'cycling is getting cleaner' narrative that UCI and the peloton wants to establish.

 

[goggalor]

interesting angle.

A racist angle.