Lance Armstrong accepts lifetime ban, loss of Tour de France


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 881 - 900 of total 1042 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Mountain climber
Jan 15, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
the following is in answer to zBrown's question [about 20 or 30 posts back already] and for all those who apologize for armstrong with the "everybody was doping" line of thinking.

here's a quick summary of a few of the people that armstrong has f*#ked and the reason why if he walks away only giving an apology, a few tears, and a few million bucks [out of his estimated 125 million net worth] he'll be laughing for a second time at all of you tools who are using the everyone was doing it line to apologize for him.

1. emma oreilly, a soigneur who spoke the truth in 2003. she then spent three years fighting a defamation law suit that would have bankrupted her and was filed by lance armstrong and his team. also had to deal with public denigration [being called a whore, etc.] by armstrong.
2. betsy andreu, wife of a cyclist who gave an affidavit regarding lance admitting in her presence some of the p.e.d. he used. she was publicly called a prostitute and an alcoholic by armstong and messages were left on her phone saying "i hope somebody breaks a baseball bat over your head" [the message, albeit, was not from armstrong directly].
3. mike anderson, a personal assistant who was apparently financially f*#ked over and then sued by armstrong and his team.
4. christophe bassons, cyclist who quit cycling after trying to come clean and being accosted by armstrong.
5. filippo simeoni, another cyclist who tried to tell the truth. he was then generally harrassed and publicly called a liar by armstrong.

this list is by no means exhaustive and is only meant to get a person started. i haven't worried about all of the other doping cyclists that armstrong threatened, publicly accosted, etc. [hamilton, landis, etc.]

and i'd place good money that for every one person willing to deal with the almost continuous public attacks to their reputations and financial wellbeing there are another 5-10 that have kept their mouth shut due to the threats and intimidation.

this list also doesn't begin to deal with all of the institutions he and his team have sued [the sunday times, usada, sca promotions, etc.] and the public denigration and insulting of those doing their jobs [dick pound, travis tygart, etc.].

anyone who can't see that armstrong is unique in how he used his position to intimidate, silence, and ruin others still has their head up their own ass. you're like the metaphoric ww2 japanese soldier still fighting in 1950.

your. hero. never. was.

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Jan 15, 2013 - 07:13pm PT

"your. hero. never. was. "...



Social climber
somewhere that doesnt have anything over 90'
Jan 15, 2013 - 07:26pm PT
article on

Give Lance a Chance
He’s a cheater and a bully who doesn’t deserve leniency. But letting the champ cut a deal may be the only way to fix cycling.
By Emily Bazelon and William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013, at 6:34 PM ET

Lance Armstrong addresses participants at the Livestrong Challenge Ride in October 2012 in Austin, Texas. Armstrong is trying to cut a deal with the U.S. ADA regarding doping allegations.
Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images.
As the date of Lance Armstrong’s televised confession draws closer, there is now word that the cyclist and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency have discussed the outlines of a deal. The New York Times says Armstrong met last month with officials of the USADA to talk about what he could do to reduce his lifetime ban from competition, and that USADA boss Travis Tygart is willing to shorten the sentence in exchange for Armstrong’s help in snaring his enablers. Those potential targets include the current, former, and honorary presidents of the International Cycling Union, known by its French acronym, UCI. The Times says that according to its sources, Armstrong is planning to testify about ICU officials’ involvement in doping.
When we saw these reports last night, many of us at Slate went nuts. Wasn’t Armstrong the kingpin of cycling’s decades-long program of lying and cheating? Why would you cut him a deal to implicate anyone else? But when you study USADA’s 200-page report on Armstrong’s doping career (PDF), a deal begins to make sense. Yes, Armstrong deserves every day of his lifetime ban. But he’s finished. His confession seals his guilt and disgrace. The problem now is UCI, which, according to USADA, masquerades as an adjudicating body while protecting dopers. To clean up cycling, and to keep it clean, you have to take down UCI, or at least its current leadership.
UCI presents itself as a drug cop. It claims its anti-doping program, designed to “get rid of cheats,” administered more than 15,000 tests in 2009. It boasts that all its blood samples “are taken by UCI-approved officials,” that all analysis is done by UCI-accredited labs, and that “the world’s leading experts analyze abnormal blood profiles. They advise the UCI on whether to open disciplinary proceedings for a breach of the anti-doping regulations.”

But according to USADA’s report, UCI has routinely protected Armstrong instead of exposing him. In a 2002 meeting, Armstrong offered UCI at least $100,000. That fits with testimony from cyclists Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton—which Armstrong has denied—that Armstrong told them he “flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement to keep [a] positive test hidden.” When a French newspaper reported in 2005 that six of Armstrong’s 1999 blood samples showed EPO doping, UCI appointed an investigator who cleared Armstrong on a technicality. In 2009, the French anti-doping agency, known as AFLD, reported during its joint testing with UCI that Armstrong’s team got “privileged information or timing advantages during doping control tests.” When Landis implicated Armstrong in an April 30, 2010, email, UCI sued Landis instead of investigating Armstrong. In May 2011, when Hamilton publicly implicated Armstrong, UCI official Hein Verbruggen dismissed the idea, insisting “Lance Armstrong has never used doping.” No UCI representative even met with Landis or Hamilton. And four days after Armstrong sued USADA last year, claiming it had no authority over him, UCI—suddenly reversing itself—sent USADA a letter agreeing with cycling’s top dog.
Worse, the report indicates that UCI’s protection of dopers extends beyond Armstrong:
As set forth in the affidavit of former professional cyclist Jörg Jaksche, the UCI has responded with similar disdain and disinterest towards other cyclists that have tried to bring forth evidence of the serious extent of doping within the peloton. After coming forward and admitting doping in 2007, Mr. Jaksche spoke with UCI lawyers and officials, including [UCI President Pat] McQuaid, seeking to explain the level of doping that had been taking place on Team Telekom, ONCE, CSC and Liberty Seguros, however, according to Mr. Jaksche, “the UCI showed zero interest in hearing the full story about doping on these teams and did not seek to follow up with me.” Rather, Jaksche reports that “McQuaid told me he would have liked me to have handled things differently …”
If these allegations are true, UCI is like a dirty cop, or a police department gone rotten from the top down. In criminal cases, prosecutors concerned about corruption sometimes flip mobsters, even those high up in the food chain, to testify against police officers, if they see the crooked cop as the larger problem. After all, institutional corruption can pose the greater future threat. In the 2007 Chicago Mafia trial, for example, former mob boss Frank Calabrese Jr., author of the tell-all book Operation Family Secrets, was the star witness, and the five convicted men included retired Chicago police officer Anthony Doyle. The trial included testimony about Mafia payoffs to other officers, including former chief of detectives William Hanhardt, who’d been indicted for leading a $5 million jewelry theft ring at the end of a storied career in law enforcement. The woman who flipped on him was a former accomplice.
Institutional corruption is a known problem in doping. In 2003, a doctor who directed the United States Olympic Committee’s drug control administration produced documents showing that 100 American athletes who competed in the Olympics had failed drug tests that should have disqualified them. The batch included Carl Lewis, the amazing sprinter and long jumper. He’d tested positive three times before the 1988 Olympics for banned stimulants. Lewis was initially banned from the Seoul Olympics in response to the doctor’s revelations, but the USOC overturned that decision, accepting Lewis’ explanation that he’d used the drugs inadvertently. Other athletes gave the same excuse and were also cleared. In a 2003 interview, Lewis admitted to testing positive three times but said he was just one of many American athletes to duck punishment. "There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same." By the time he admitted this, Lewis had retired, and the International Olympic Committee declined to review his case because a three-year statute of limitation had passed.
It’s galling, for sure, to imagine Armstrong—the man who seems to have bullied an entire sport into doping—blowing the whistle on anyone else. But exposing UCI’s brass could turn out to be more crucial to cleaning up the sport. The only way we’ll know whether a deal is worthwhile is to see Armstrong’s evidence against them. Let’s hear what he has to say.

Jan 15, 2013 - 08:12pm PT

Oprah is this amazing example of black woman who defied al odds and created a bunch of bullshit TV no one but housewives on Valium care about.

Trad climber
Jan 15, 2013 - 09:09pm PT
when I saw this (in 2005 I believe) I knew what type of character Lance was.
The 9/11 liar and the TdF liar. Birds of a feather ha ha

Credit: internet

(that's W)

Trad climber
Jan 15, 2013 - 09:21pm PT

Lance Armstrong and the cost-benefit analysis of confession

Don't be fooled: the only thing choking up Lance is the lawsuits he has to settle. But he'll recoup through Oprah's redemption

Lance Armstrong doping confession on Oprah's network could have serious legal implications — video
According to CBS, Armstrong is in talks with the US justice department to settle a 'whistleblower' suit relating to Armstrong's USPS cycling team. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters

It is now absolutely clear that Lance Armstrong will make some form of admission in Thursday's interview with Oprah Winfrey to the dope-cheating that the Usada report called "the great heist sport has ever seen". The public relations strategy of drip-by-drip leaking has been expertly executed.

First, there was the New York Times' scoop about Armstrong's contacts with Usada to reduce his lifetime ban (disclosure: my sceptical response has proven 100% wrong). Then, we learned about the Oprah appearance, and it became ever harder to imagine what they would have to talk about for 90 minutes if Armstrong continued his career-long practice of stonewalling doping accusations and destroying those who spoke the truth. On Monday, the day his Oprah show was being recorded, Armstrong met with staff at the cancer charity he founded but recently resigned from, and rendered a tearful, "choked up" apology to his former Livestrong colleagues. And finally, we learn via CBS that Armstrong may even be willing to testify himself against fellow cyclists on doping charges.

In short, this now looks like a carefully choreographed, slow-release PR plan – likely managed by Armstrong's long-time agent Bill Stapleton – to perform a 180-degree turn on all previously held positions: belligerent denial, self-righteous indignation and bullying belittling of accusers. Instead, we have Lance Armstrong the penitent sinner: the weepy, choked-up prodigal son, who is finally coming clean and seeks redemption. As is well-established, an audience with Oprah achieves that almost instantaneously: I can see her right now, reaching out and taking his hand as he shakes with emotion and talks about the pain of living the false life we all made him lead.

And from redemption to rehabilitation. Armstrong will leverage his confession to the maximum to get his lifetime ban reduced, to four years, perhaps less. He'll be back before we know it: a slightly grizzled and more wrinkled version of himself, glad-handing and fist-bumping on the triathlon circuit, getting back to fundraising for the Livestrong Foundation, making faux-humble speeches for fat fees on the after-dinner circuit, mopping up some handy corporate sponsorships, reconnecting with his Washington power-broker contacts, and – older and wiser – maybe even running for office himself, as was once mooted.

But this only stacks up because, for the second half of his life, Armstrong needs not to be permanently exiled from American public life: to be a viable celebrity brand is all his future. The costs are significant: he will almost certainly have to settle with SCA Promotions, but they will probably take a lot less than the $11m that headlines their suit. The Sunday Times wants to recover $500,000 in damages, plus another $1m in costs; but they'll take less.

But here's the thing: Armstrong's net worth is estimated to exceed $100m. These sums sting, but they don't really hurt him. And next to his post-rehabilitation earnings potential, they're chump change.

The only remaining obstacle is Floyd Landis' "whistleblower suit" under the False Claims Act. Also called a "qui tam" suit, most such civil legal actions fail – unless the US justice department chooses to join as a co-plaintiff, in which case the chances of success multiply dramatically. Landis' suit alleges that Lance Armstrong, in effect, defrauded US taxpayers who were, via the US Postal Service, the title sponsor of Armstrong's Tour de France-winning cycling teams from 1999-2003. That sponsorship was worth, reportedly, about $10m per year, making $50m in total.

If Armstrong was choking up and sobbing at his Livestrong Foundation encounter, it was far more likely because he had received word that senior officials in the justice department had recommended that the federal government join Landis' lawsuit, than for any show of true contrition. It must be a rattling prospect, even for Armstrong, that the US government would be coming after him, along with Landis, for potentially tens of millions of dollars – which, all the pre-publicity tells us to expect, Armstrong will confess he took under false pretences when he won by cheating.

As this latest turn in the Armstrong saga demonstrates, the disgraced cyclist is nothing if not well-advised: the combination of off-the-record briefing (Mark Fabiani, Bill Stapleton?) and official denial (attorney Tim Herman) was text-book stuff. No doubt, they have done their sums, too. So if Armstrong has already opened negotiations with Travis Tygart at Usada to get his ban reduced, then it's likely, as CBS reports, that there have been talks with the justice department about a deal to settle the qui tam suit.

The question of why the US justice department is piggybacking on Landis' suit now, when a US attorney in California inexplicably nixed a prosecution based on the federal grand jury investigation into precisely the same charges of fraud is now mainly of academic interest. In his book, The Secret Ride, Tyler Hamilton hinted strongly that Armstrong's political connections pulled strings. We do know that Armstrong lied repeatedly, even under oath, but thanks to the statute of limitations in one case (the suit against SCA in a 2005 lawsuit), and a wayward federal attorney in another, Armstrong has dodged a felony rap.

A criminal conviction, no; but civil damages he can afford. Armstrong will have done his math, and worked out where the percentage lies: it's with confession. The benefits outweigh the costs: he'll earn that rehabilitation, but he will come out ahead.

The irony of this day is that it also saw the retirement of the greatest female cyclist of her generation: former world and Olympic champion Nicole Cooke. In her statement, of great dignity but justified anger, she directly pointed to the damage Lance Armstrong's dope-cheating did to her career, and to the entire women's sport, by killing its sponsorship. Please read it in full; it is a historic document. But this line says everything we need to hear about Lance Armstrong's confession:

I can't help thinking that the cheats win on the way up and the way down.


Trad climber
Oaksterdam, CA
Jan 15, 2013 - 09:23pm PT
saw this post

"At least he had the ball to come clean"

Trad climber
4 Corners Area
Jan 15, 2013 - 09:43pm PT
"For every rat you see, there'e a dozen more you don't see." Isn't that how the saying goes.

What this makes me wonder about is how many of the most successful, rich and famous people in this world got to their positions through dishonest means? I bet its a significant proportion, perhaps more than half.

Sh!t floats to the top . . .

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Jan 15, 2013 - 09:53pm PT

"At least he had the ball to come clean"...


GUD one!!!...(Sh!t and a pun...LOL!!!)

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Jan 15, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
W could have least taken the winkies off his bike.

Jan 15, 2013 - 10:04pm PT
If Lance takes down the UCI, I might actually gain a bit of respect for him. It isn't possible for this whole mess to get to this level without the UCI either turning a blind eye or helping.

For those that are stating yeah but everyone doped, yes you are correct because those that decided they wanted to ride clean left the sport or stuck to riding smaller events.

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
Is this too harsh?


Ice climber
the ghost
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:57pm PT
France is almost as bad as Texas
Cruel but fair
Captain...or Skully

Jan 15, 2013 - 11:20pm PT
I come from a long line of Drill Sergeants.

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jan 16, 2013 - 08:56am PT
and what about Armstrong's lawyers?

Mountain climber
Jan 16, 2013 - 10:42am PT
this whole subject has turned into one of those "hard to look away from a train wreck" type situations. what follows is in response to those who hold up livestrong and armstrong's cancer "research" fundraising as an explanation for why armstrong should be given at least some respect.

admittedly what follows is at this point mostly smoke. but given how pretty much all of the other smoke that's been reported over the last 15 years has turned out to be coming from actual fires, i'd bet hard money that if the feds ever get serious about investigating livestrong they'll find more lies and fraudulent or at least unethical enrichment of armstrong. there are just too many parallels between the way livestrong operates and the way armstrong the brand operates.

i don't have the time to go through all of the allegations but here are a few lowlights:

 "Most people are unaware that there are two Livestrong websites. is the site for the nonprofit Lance Armstrong Foundation, while is a somewhat similar-looking page that features the same Livestrong logo and design but is actually a for-profit content farm owned by Demand Media. ... As compensation for the use of its name, the foundation received about 183,000 shares of stock, which it sold for $3.1 million when the company went public in January 2011. Armstrong also received 156,000 shares of his own as part of a spokesperson agreement. (His agents, Bill Stapleton and Bart Knaggs, also received shares.) After the deal was criticized in the media, Armstrong donated his initial sale proceeds—roughly $1.2 million—to the foundation and said he planned to donate the rest, too." [emphasis mine] outside

 "Although Armstrong had told Vanity Fair he would be racing for free, he actually pocketed appearance fees in the high six figures from the organizers of both the Tour Down Under and the Giro d’Italia. An Australian government official told reporters that the money was a charitable donation, but Lance himself admitted to The New York Times that he was treating it as personal income." outside

 "In October, Betsy Andreu and Kathy LeMond described to Roopstigo a 2008 email Armstrong had sent to Sen. John Kerry that threatened to use the Livestrong database against the Democratic Party if then-presidential hopeful Barack Obama did not attend the cyclist’s cancer summit." forbes

again those are just to get a person started, there are many more rumours/allegations/etc swirling around regarding the large amount spent on advertising, legal fees, etc.; the mafia like way his lawyers deal with anyone who tries to write stories about livestrong; and on and on.

here are a few more links to save those bored at work the googling:

while i do hope these instances are isolated, baseless, or misinterpreted i'm not going to be holding my breath. as others have pointed out it smells a lot like mortenson all over again.

the more that comes to light the more it looks like armstrong didn't just have cancer, he is a cancer.

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Jan 16, 2013 - 11:21am PT
I wonder if Lance pauses over his breakfast toast and sees it as a metaphor on where his life has gone?
Mark Hudon

Trad climber
Hood River, OR
Jan 16, 2013 - 11:25am PT
Fkn' a$$hole.

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Jan 16, 2013 - 11:48am PT

What still get's me is how so many here (And around the fuking WORLD), fell for his stupid BULLSH!T...

Fuking IDIOTS!!!...

and the way so many HERE have taken up for that LYING SACK...

Take a look at yer hero now...

aka the NUTLESS wonder BOIee...

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
Jan 16, 2013 - 11:50am PT
Calm down locker. So we're a bunch of idiots.

I like Donini's toast observation. I wonder, can we all tweet him suggestions as to various metaphors and analogies whereby he can ponder his lot in life?
Messages 881 - 900 of total 1042 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews