What's the point?

[D-Queued]

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.

The only thing missing in the UCI's statement was the word 'vindicated'. Ok, that and some sort of mention of Vrijman.

That is the fastest reaction ever from the UCI on anything.

Dave.

 

[rhubroma]

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.

Evidently not, except for his legal team telling him what to admit to and what not. He's always thought of himself as above it all and, in his profound delusion, perhaps truly believes he deserves a second chance, like everyone else.

I can forsee him now being forced into an eventual court confession, of which perhaps he still believes it won't come to that, though he is making the most egregious assumptions.

On the Borat note, his mafioso tactics are nothing compared to the potential dangers of upsetting that hornets nest.

 

[uspostal]

It could be the UCI is basically allowing Lance to keep his 7 titles by not giving them to anybody else as long as he kept the UCI had not helped him in anyway. By saying they all doped in that era, so no winner will be declared also helps Lance give the old level playing field line and it seems more realistic.

 

[rhubroma]

A racist angle.

Racist, no. Unfortunately that state is terribly corrupt and, as far as business is concerned, in the grips of the most unscrupulous and lethal cut-throats. I read an article a while back about the problems of doing business there on the part of Italian companies, which is truly saying something.

 

[the asian]

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.

Even though he rode for Astana in 2009 Bruyneel was in charge.


And in 2010 he rode for RadioShack.

Don't think the Kazakh angle has anything to with it.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

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.

[/IMG]

10 characters

 

[sniper]

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.

I only just remembered the 2009 pre-test notifications Astana was receiving, being given extra time to finish showering in the morning, remember?

Not farfetched to assume that in 2009 the UCI were more complicit than in any of the previous years.

There would be damage on both sides if any matchfixing (in the shape of pre-test notifications and other favors) would come to light involving Astana and UCI.

 

[python]

the one and only reason for claiming riding clean in 2009-10 (and of course lying about it) is the obvious weakness of the usada stand-alone evidence if compared to the bulletproof evidence from 1998-2005.

usada itself acknowledge this in their note 420 on page 82: ‘…usada’s case against mr Armstrong does not turn on evidence of Armstrong doping during 2009-12 timeframe…provides corroboration…’

a quick look at the reasoned decision makes this point clear. While usada meticulously detailed the evidence of doping between 1998 and 2005 on 63 pages, the 2009-12 evidence was summed up on 5 pages and amounted to: (i) proving that Armstrong lied about his contacts with Ferrari and
(ii) that his blood profile indicated doping.

Given cas’s known legal precedents and views, such evidence (when presented alone) would likely not suffice to prove doping.

it is likely that in 2009-10 his doping programme was known only to a very narrow circle and they agreed on the common ‘clean’ narrative if arbitrated.

the best indication that he doped was that he duped catlin into believing that he will let catlin do his job…

 

[Benotti69]

It could be the UCI is basically allowing Lance to keep his 7 titles by not giving them to anybody else as long as he kept the UCI had not helped him in anyway. By saying they all doped in that era, so no winner will be declared also helps Lance give the old level playing field line and it seems more realistic.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How can he keep something he acknowledged he cheated to win? He has been stripped. No going back. He wont talk to USADA.

There was no level playing field, that old excuse wont wash no matter how many times you try and repeat it.

Please change the record it is long past its sell by date.

 

[Benotti69]

the one and only reason for claiming riding clean in 2009-10 (and of course lying about it) is the obvious weakness of the usada stand-alone evidence if compared to the bulletproof evidence from 1998-2005.

usada itself acknowledge this in their note 420 on page 82: ‘…usada’s case against mr Armstrong does not turn on evidence of Armstrong doping during 2009-12 timeframe…provides corroboration…’

a quick look at the reasoned decision makes this point clear. While usada meticulously detailed the evidence of doping between 1998 and 2005 on 63 pages, the 2009-12 evidence was summed up on 5 pages and amounted to: (i) proving that Armstrong lied about his contacts with Ferrari and
(ii) that his blood profile indicated doping.

Given cas’s known legal precedents and views, such evidence (when presented alone) would likely not suffice to prove doping.

it is likely that in 2009-10 his doping programme was known only to a very narrow circle and they agreed on the common ‘clean’ narrative if arbitrated.

the best indication that he doped was that he duped catlin into believing that he will let catlin do his job…

I hope the Italian Guardia Di Finanzia will be able to find payments from Armstrong to Ferarri for these years. Although he may have flown the cash in.

Armstrong missed the boat for CAS I thought or does that option still lie open to him.

 

[frenchfry]

Putting aside the legal arguements, for me the reason he says he didn't dope for his comeback is to get us to believe he could come in third while riding clean - proving his supernatural ability.

I don't think he fooled anyone, and leaves us with the feeling that the systematic lying isn't over yet.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I hope the Italian Guardia Di Finanzia will be able to find payments from Armstrong to Ferarri for these years. Although he may have flown the cash in.

My estimation is Wiesel did something clever like Hein's setup with Wiesel and Och. Wiesel can pass money into Ferrari's account and no money laundering problems. That is consistent with Wiesel. He's a risk taker, but seems to map out a plausible defense for every risk. The frightening kind of smart.

IMHO, Wonderboy and his team calculated that USADA didn't have enough to get him for the third era the way they had the second doping era. As other posts have said, this is about getting the revenues started again and being great in his own mind. As mentioned in other threads, nothing has changed. Same sociopath, different message.

Mentioning the bio-passport was a way to get in the good graces of the IOC. The way Hein and Pat responded, all of what was said was clearly worked out in advance. Which, is how these interviews work anyway.

FYI the first era of doping for Wonderboy and other Americans was under Carmichael and Wenzel.

 

[rhubroma]

Putting aside the legal arguements, for me the reason he says he didn't dope for his comeback is to get us to believe he could come in third while riding clean - proving his supernatural ability.

I don't think he fooled anyone, and leaves us with the feeling that the systematic lying isn't over yet.

Indeed....

 

[Turner29]

I sincerely doubt Wiesel had any financial contacts with anyone outside of Tailwind Sports.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I sincerely doubt Wiesel had any financial contacts with anyone outside of Tailwind Sports.

Doubt no more!
The investment bank founded by Thomas Weisel, the powerful Silicon Valley financier who bankrolled and owned Lance Armstrong's former cycling team, also managed assets for the then-head of cycling's governing body, according to a broker who handled the accounts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html

I'll say it again. Thom's smart in a way that should scare people.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Putting aside the legal arguements, for me the reason he says he didn't dope for his comeback is to get us to believe he could come in third while riding clean - proving his supernatural ability.

I don't think he fooled anyone, and leaves us with the feeling that the systematic lying isn't over yet.

Yeah but "clean" Leipheimer was much closer to Contador in the '08 Vuelta than he was in the '09 Tour. So he still gets out-fibbed by Bottle

 

[H2OUUP2]

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^^

Also, I don't know if this has already been mentioned. But more Irony so thick it hurts to swallow. Lying during his confession interview. Lance never disappoints.

 

[doperhopper]

This^^

Also, I don't know if this has already been mentioned. But more Irony so thick it hurts to swallow. Lying during his confession interview. Lance never disappoints.

Don't worry he'll admit these lies in the sequel, LA Confessidential II. Oprah will use the money-making potential of Uniballer to the max and LA takes 50%.

 

[Merckx index]

No doper juices for everything; they target specific races. No doubt LA competed in some races during his comeback clean. The question is, which ones? This is an example of how rigorously honest testimony from LA could really help the fight against doping. It would be very interesting to be able to compare his clean and doped performances.

I have little doubt he doped in the 2009 TDF, because he didn’t finish all that far behind Bert and Andy, who I strongly suspect were doping. If a clean LA could finish that high, then a doped LA could have won that Tour, or at least made it very competitive with Bert. Not to mention that his behavior during that Tour made it clear there was no love lost for Bert, that he very badly wanted to beat Contador. A guy who admits he will do everything to win is going to dope under those circumstances. The hate and jealousy LA felt towards Bert would not allow him to race clean.

But what about the Giro that year? Was he doped for that? He didn’t target that race as one he wanted to win. He was mostly racing it because he never had before. His preparation for it was severely set back by a broken collarbone, and of course this would have been worse for him than for other riders, because he was coming back from a layoff of several years. With all that as an excuse, he could have raced it clean, finished 57th, and laughed it off, saying it was just a training ride for the Tour.

Yet he finished 12th, a pretty strong showing. You don’t finish that high in the Giro if you are just using it for training for the TDF, as Ulle was in 2006. But LA was never in contention, and this was a weaker field than the Tour. Could this be an example of what LA was capable of doing when clean?

At the least, I’m thinking if he did dope for the Giro, he did not go all out on the program, as he certainly would have for the Tour. Maybe he micro-dosed EPO, but did not take any transfusions. Or maybe he transfused before the race started, but did not during any rest days.

But this is all speculation. This is the kind of stuff that would be important in a real confession. Not to mention how they avoided the testers, what they knew about getting around the passport, and so on.

 

[mastersracer]

No doper juices for everything; they target specific races. No doubt LA competed in some races during his comeback clean. The question is, which ones? This is an example of how rigorously honest testimony from LA could really help the fight against doping. It would be very interesting to be able to compare his clean and doped performances.

I have little doubt he doped in the 2009 TDF, because he didn’t finish all that far behind Bert and Andy, who I strongly suspect were doping. If a clean LA could finish that high, then a doped LA could have won that Tour, or at least made it very competitive with Bert. Not to mention that his behavior during that Tour made it clear there was no love lost for Bert, that he very badly wanted to beat Contador. A guy who admits he will do everything to win is going to dope under those circumstances. The hate and jealousy LA felt towards Bert would not allow him to race clean.

But what about the Giro that year? Was he doped for that? He didn’t target that race as one he wanted to win. He was mostly racing it because he never had before. His preparation for it was severely set back by a broken collarbone, and of course this would have been worse for him than for other riders, because he was coming back from a layoff of several years. With all that as an excuse, he could have raced it clean, finished 57th, and laughed it off, saying it was just a training ride for the Tour.

Yet he finished 12th, a pretty strong showing. You don’t finish that high in the Giro if you are just using it for training for the TDF, as Ulle was in 2006. But LA was never in contention, and this was a weaker field than the Tour. Could this be an example of what LA was capable of doing when clean?

At the least, I’m thinking if he did dope for the Giro, he did not go all out on the program, as he certainly would have for the Tour. Maybe he micro-dosed EPO, but did not take any transfusions. Or maybe he transfused before the race started, but did not during any rest days.

But this is all speculation. This is the kind of stuff that would be important in a real confession. Not to mention how they avoided the testers, what they knew about getting around the passport, and so on.

He could have also used the Giro to test his response to new doping protocols that were required due to anti-doping changes since 2005 to determine what was required for the Tour.

 

[Flux Capacity]

Maybe it has to do with statue of limitation?

Kramer, is that you?