Lance Armstrong To Confess?

Eomer_sl said:

What part of "they couldn't even test for EPO for half of his Tour wins" is so fucking difficult to comprehend?

Click to expand...

What the fuck happened to storing the samples for years and back testing? Wasn't that a threat they always used regarding doping?
Did he dope? probably, but if they can't prove it through tests and their only evidence is testimony of dopers they cut a deal with they need to STFU. This reeks of Jose Conseco level shenanigans. If you are gonna publicly burn a man down, you better have him dead to rights before you tie him to a pillory.

Conseco was right about everyone he called out as far as I know. I always wonder if the Armstrong defenders also defend Barry Bonds. Somehow I doubt it.

dammit lance

Clearly Oprah Winfrey is the place to open up all your darkest secrets.

Conseco being 'right' wasn't my point. Aw fuckit, I dont have a dog in this fight. Cycling is silly imo, Armstrong is a complete tool. Doping in sports is never going away and should probably be embraced. My problem with all of this is I would want concrete evidence presented against me if people were trying to take away my livelihood, faggots crying 'he did it too' failed at being men and their testimony is tainted to say the least.

I thought there was an actual test which had been retroactively looked at which he had failed? A French lab blind tested some old samples after developing a test for EPO and found a few which had said previously untraceable EPO in them. It was only later on that a journalist went through the published results and matched up the sample numbers from the study with the sample numbers done by the TourDeFrance and realised one of them was Armstrongs. His response was of course to claim variously that the sample was tainted, the journo was doing a hatchet job and the laboratory was a front for Al Queda etc etc

BrutulTM_sl said:

I don't think the evidence requirements to ban someone from sports are at quite the same level as a criminal court.

Click to expand...

that's the part I have issue with

BrutulTM_sl said:

The USADA isn't a court of law. He hasn't been criminally or civilly prosecuted yet as far as I know. I don't think the evidence requirements to ban someone from sports are at quite the same level as a criminal court.

Click to expand...

I understand that sports can and should ban people for less than conclusive evidence, but the USADA has been portraying these witness statements as conclusive and undeniable proof he doped.

Did he dope, I have no idea. I certainly think it's in the realm of possibility but I don't know. We can see what he says when he does the Oprah thing. I also can't seem to find any source for the "leak" that he is going to confess, it seems to be the media speculation feeding upon itself.

Looking at all the lawsuits filed against him with the expectation of him confessing makes me wonder why he would admit to doping.

Going with the assumption that he did dope and is a media savvy egomaniac as portrayed by his detractors.

Step 1: Set up Oprah Interview.

Step 2: Have close friend "leak" news he will confess to build up interest.

Step 3: Deny everything and make counter accusations.

Step 4: Release book amid controversy detailing his "struggles" and persecution.

Step 5: Buy Tropical Island and Livestrong?


It could be all fantasy but It would certainly have that polarization that makes for good book sales lol. Maybe he can take a page from the OJ Simpson playbook and write in in the "If I Did It" style.

Fazana_sl said:

I thought there was an actual test which had been retroactively looked at which he had failed? A French lab blind tested some old samples after developing a test for EPO and found a few which had said previously untraceable EPO in them. It was only later on that a journalist went through the published results and matched up the sample numbers from the study with the sample numbers done by the TourDeFrance and realised one of them was Armstrongs. His response was of course to claim variously that the sample was tainted, the journo was doing a hatchet job and the laboratory was a front for Al Queda etc etc

Click to expand...

This. He also tested positive for cortisone in competition. His excuse was that they forgot to submit his prescription for saddle sores as he should have. The real story was that he never had saddle sores and that they came up with it as an excuse after he tested positive, and that he should have been sanctioned for that. There's no question that cortisone is a PED. Hundreds of athletes in various disciplines are and have been sanctioned for far lesser offenses.

The reason I get all RAGE about Lance Armstrong is that the same people in this thread have been saying the same stupid, ill-informed shit on the previous threads as well and obviously have no interest in educating themselves on the full story. You want evidence? Go read USADA's report. It was enough for even Nike, who stood by him for a decade, to go "yeah, that fucker doped, we're out."

But no, there's no solid evidence, just a lot of people stabbing him in the back, right?

Merkins4Brazil_sl said:

What the fuck happened to storing the samples for years and back testing? Wasn't that a threat they always used regarding doping?

Click to expand...

There were no protocols for that in cycling until very recently. And I think even in WADA sanctioned events that's only been something relatively recent. But since you asked, yes, a sample of his re-tested several years after did indeed test positive for EPO. This has been mentioned at least a dozen times in this thread, and threads on previous boards. See above in this post. Of course Armstrong denied everything, and since proper protocols were not in place, it wasn't enough to sanction him on it's own.

Merkins4Brazil_sl said:

that's the part I have issue with

Click to expand...

Why should the burden of proof be the same as a criminal proceeding?

Eomer_sl said:

Why should the burden of proof be the same as a criminal proceeding?

Click to expand...

because they are going to label him as a criminal.

Merkins4Brazil_sl said:

because they are going to label him as a criminal.

Click to expand...

Explain.

Eomer_sl said:

Go read USADA's report. It was enough for even Nike, who stood by him for a decade, to go "yeah, that fucker doped, we're out."

But no, there's no solid evidence, just a lot of people stabbing him in the back, right?

Click to expand...

A company withdrawing sponsorship is not proof of guilt or innocence as you seem to imply. Many companies stay away from controversial topics to minimize risk. The USADA banning Armstrong was a new level of controversy and seems to have bypassed the risk / reward factor for Nike. It's this sort of self referential "guilt" logic that people are using that intrigues me about this.

I looked up the highlights of the USADA report here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...ng-report.html


It really is just a bunch of witness statements that they used to conclude armstrong was lying. "He said she said" comes to mind. They wrote it in a manner that implied they had physical evidence, but when it comes down to the substance, it's just statements.

If he was faster while doping than all the other cyclists, who have almost all been found guilty also, wouldn't that still make him the fastest?

The whole sport is a sham.

Man0warr_sl said:

If he was faster while doping than all the other cyclists, who have almost all been found guilty also, wouldn't that still make him the fastest?

The whole sport is a sham.

Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think Armstrong is some sort of super human. I just don't see this conclusive evidence the USADA keeps saying they have.

I mean if they had said "we have strong suspicion he doped and will ban him in the future" I could support that.

It was a doping competition as well as a cycling competition. Armstrong presumably won the doping competition due to the immense resources and doctors available to him (as well as his relentless dedication).

Looks like he confessed to Oprah after all.

Report: Lance Armstrong confessed doping to Oprah - latimes

Nice article.

"The person also said Armstrong apologized for letting the staff down and putting Livestrong at risk but he did not make a direct confession to using banned drugs. He said he would try to restore the foundation's reputation and urged the group to continue fighting for the charity's mission of helping cancer patients and their families."


Gonna ride that controversy as long as he can~~~