'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Kav0777

No

Jens Voigt's reaction:

I think that Armstrong has it hard enough these days. He has been punished enough now, he really struggles

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/voigt-armstrong-has-been-punished-enough


Edit to say:

oh and the obligatory

Now we learn from it so it never happens again. He says he began to dope in the mid-90s, and this is SO long ago by now.

Dermot Illogical

No

Kav0777 wrote: »

Jens Voigt's reaction:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/voigt-armstrong-has-been-punished-enough
Edit to say:
oh and the obligatory

If his legs could talk they'd say "Shut up Jens!".

velo.2010

Watched it. He said he didn't dope in 2009/10. Bollox. He wants a clean buffer period to suggest he can be competitive without doping if he gets to come back.

I'll have to watch it again later but something about the 2001 test didn't make sense.

As for not talking about the hospital, well clearly there are legal aspects he's been told might arise because there was more than one person in that room at the time. I hope Oprah dug a little deeper in the second part of the interview, Bassons. Simeone etc.

Hermy

No

Hermy wrote: »

And by times they are queueing up to be hoodwinked.

Andy Schleck: “I think he's actually a good person."

brasshead

No

greenmat wrote: »

I lasted 3 mins 55 secs before turning off, a lying cheating b**tard. Why believe what he has to say now?

The pitch of Ophrah's voice drops around 9'30" into the interview on this version. Has she taken testosterone to conduct the interview?

Rofo

No

petethedrummer

No

Lumen wrote: »

He admitted doping for his entire career up to 2005.

Whilst I don't think that gets him off the hook for further legal action, I don't believe it either.

Why would he stop completely?

You see, all the rest of them stopped in 2006. Lance being the Patron of the peloton stopped in 2005. The first of the non-dopers was Lance.

morana wrote: »

must be denying doping in 09/10 because of statute of limitations or something. His blood profiles from the giro and tour are indicative of doping.

I would say its because he wants to maintain the illusion that he was always a natural tour contender. He can point back to 2009 and say "Wiggins was clean, I was clean, I could be winning TDFs if everyone was clean".

He couldn't though.

Kav0777

No

Well, Sammy Sanchez is on message:

The image of cycling suffered in that era, today it is totally different

mcgratheoin

No

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2013/jan/18/lance-armstrong-masseuse-doping-video

Emma O'Reilly's response "the little runt"

petethedrummer

No

letape wrote: »

And this Basso's response:

What a joke - has never come clean or shown any remorse himself.

Basso does make his in race power files available to the public though. Which is nice. Well, he used to I dunno if he still does.

Edit: He still does: http://www.mapeisport.it/ivanbasso/Download.asp

Edit2: And blood test results and VO2 Max test results. His Vo2 Max ranges from 73 to 83.

Hermy

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

'...I could be winning TDFs if everyone was clean".

We'll never know but I often wonder how he would have fared in a clean peloton given that he targeted the Tour while most others rode a full season from the Spring classics to the Race of the Falling Leaves.

mcgratheoin

No

Just wondering - does anyone have a list of quotes from 1999/2000 of cyclists being asked about doping? I'd imagine there was a lot of "it's clean now, that was a completely different era" floating around.

Plus ca change.... :mad:


"I can't speak for 180 other riders and 20 other teams. If someone is taking the risk? Maybe. If they're stupid to do that? Yes. We are hoping for a clean sport and a clean race." - Lance 2001



**edit** pre-interview chat with Mike Anderson here.

"It's not the doping. That's not the issue. I don't have this anger, or resentment toward David Millar [a cyclist who admitted doping]. I don't have this anger or resentment toward Marion Jones. Frankly, I think there are bigger problems in the world. But Lance Armstrong, it's the way he dealt with it."

Lusk Doyle

No

This thread is going to surpass the good doctor's camper van in terms of views and posts in no time at all. Good auld Lance!

Raam

No

Images of Beauty is still miles out in front.

andy69

Cavendish tells report to f**koff for asking a question about Lance!!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-PGsHoVYTk&feature=youtu.be

robs1

I know alot of people are saying that he should have gone into more detail about the drug taking and the uci money. but surely if he wants to do a deal with usada and wada he has to wait to go under oath because if tells all the details he will have no bargaining tool

Spindle

No

That's it I am done with following Cycling for good, there is no way that this interview "cleans up" Cycling, it is just rinse repeat. Cycling will be here again......

AIR-AUSSIE

No

A new link between Lance and the UCI.

Thomas Weisel 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

Beasty

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

This thread is going to surpass the good doctor's camper van in terms of views and posts in no time at all. Good auld Lance!

Raam wrote: »

Images of Beauty is still miles out in front.

If you aggregate this with the other Lance threads though ...

I've not been able to track down a thread on Boards with a bigger response to a poll - it's even bigger than the Is the Lance Armstrong poll the best we've had? poll

Raam

No

Beasty wrote: »

If you aggregate this with the other Lance threads though ...

What if we aggregate all the other pics of bike threads...

Anyway, I digress.

thebourke

Oprah intreview is on at 8pm on discovery tonight....i think most people are amazed he finally admitted doping after all those years denying it....

Beasty

No

Raam wrote: »

What if we aggregate all the other pics of bike threads...

PM me the answer and I'll let you know if the bike is bigger than Lance (or if it's all about him) ...

Neeson

Is it on 2am Irish time again?

mcgratheoin

No

robs1 wrote: »

I know alot of people are saying that he should have gone into more detail about the drug taking and the uci money. but surely if he wants to do a deal with usada and wada he has to wait to go under oath because if tells all the details he will have no bargaining tool

Yeah, he needs to provide "substantial assistance" to have any chance of getting a reduction in the ban and the amount of reduction depends on how much assistance and new information he could provide (that remains to be seen) and how much benefit he gained from his violation (quite a lot). The minimum ban under the WADA code is 8 years.

WADA Code wrote:

Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations

An Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility for an anti-doping rule violation may, prior to a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-
Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person. After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, an Anti-Doping Organization may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this section must be no less than eight (8) years. If the Anti-Doping Organization suspends any part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility under this Article, the Anti-Doping Organization shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision. If the Anti-Doping Organization subsequently reinstates any part of the suspended period of Ineligibility because the Athlete or other Person has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance which was anticipated, the Athlete or other Person may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.

This is accompanied by an extensive commentary on these aspects of the code

Comment to Article 10.5.3: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other antidoping rule violations to light is important to clean sport. Factors to be considered in assessing the importance of the Substantial Assistance would include, for example, the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in Testing.

Few individuals would be implicated by Armstrong as most of them have already spilled the beans, however were he to finger UCI administrators then the status of those individuals would be quite high. Trafficking must surely be involved (although again Lance's evidence may not be new)

The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases. An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.

Lance's refusal to play ball early on in the investigation will hurt his chances here.

If the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility under this Article in connection with the Athlete’s or other Person’s waiver of a hearing under Article 8.3 (Waiver of Hearing), the Anti-Doping Organization shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article. If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility before the conclusion of a hearing under Article 8 on the anti-doping rule violation, the hearing panel shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article at the same time the hearing panel decides whether the Athlete or other Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation. If a portion of the period of Ineligibility is suspended, the decision shall explain the basis for concluding the information provided was credible and was important to discovering or proving the anti-doping rule violation or other offense. If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility after a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and is not subject to appeal under Article 13, but the Athlete or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility, the Athlete or other Person may apply to the Anti-Doping Organization which had results management responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation to consider a suspension in the period of Ineligibility under this Article. Any such suspension of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall require the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. If any condition upon which the suspension of a period of Ineligibility is based is not fulfilled, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall reinstate the period of Ineligibility which would otherwise be applicable. Decisions rendered by Anti-Doping Organizations under this Article may be appealed pursuant to Article 13.2. This is the only circumstance under the Code where the suspension of an otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is authorized.

As an aside - there's an interesting reporting on his meeting with Tygart here. Has a ring of accuracy about it - Lance trying to convince himself and others that he's still in a position of power and Tygart's assessment that he's only doing this so he can compete again.

Beasty

No

Neeson wrote: »

Is it on 2am Irish time again?

Yes, part 2 - family, Livestrong - not sure if there are any more "revelations" expected

RobFowl

No

Neeson wrote: »

Is it on 2am Irish time again?

Yep...

Don't think I could stay up again though......

Stillorganboy

No

Why did the Journal pull Jimmy McGee 's comments on lance Armstrong ?

retalivity

This looks like the "redemption" part of the interview, if the teaser at the end of last nights is anything to go by.

'I beat cancer all on my own'
'I still want to help people and do good in the world'
'I've let my family down'
'bad example to my kids'
'<teary> I want my mother to forgive me'

yadayadayadda.....stick it up your hoop, cancer jesus.

Hermy

No

Spindle wrote: »

That's it I am done with following Cycling for good, there is no way that this interview "cleans up" Cycling, it is just rinse repeat. Cycling will be here again......

Was it ever meant to clean up cycling?

Captain Havoc

Raam wrote: »

Images of Beauty is still miles out in front.

To be fair, images of beauty thread is going since 2004, Lance thread is only going since August, at this rate the Lance thread should overtake the images of beauty thread around the first of April.