Will Armstrong confess??

djconnel · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:04 pm

The fat comment was because he was defending his prior denial of having called Betsy a "fat, crazy bitch". If any element of the quote is inaccurate, the full quote is inaccurate.

The UCI comment was very fine line: he donated because "they asked". So why did they ask?

majklnajt · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:32 pm

He said they asked because "they needed the money".

edesigner · **Joined:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:02 pm **Posts:** 106

Boy Joerg really nailed it at 9:40 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourco ... g_288p.mp4

dynaserve · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:57 pm

^Yes he did. Excellent interview.

J-Nice · **Joined:** Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:35 am **Posts:** 1474

To put a certain perspective on the doping issue, Michael Rasmussen utilized 5 blood transfusions, 100,000 I.U. of EPO, and cortisone and testosterone during the 2007 Tour, the one where he and Contador went mano-a-mano in the mountains until "The Chicken" was unceremoniously ousted.

That's a lot of doping.

KB · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:37 pm

djconnel wrote:

The UCI comment was very fine line: he donated because "they asked". So why did they ask?

What it shows is how stupid the UCI are. Conflict of Interest immediately springs to mind. Talk about lack of joined up thinking!

stella-azzurra · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:58 pm

J-Nice wrote:

To put a certain perspective on the doping issue, Michael Rasmussen utilized 5 blood transfusions, 100,000 I.U. of EPO, and cortisone and testosterone during the 2007 Tour, the one where he and Contador went mano-a-mano in the mountains until "The Chicken" was unceremoniously ousted.

That's a lot of doping.

What is your point? Rasmussen needed a lot of blood to achieve those results?
How many bags did Contador need?
I like Jorgs's interview. Armstrong should have been more direct like this.

swinter · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:54 pm

edesigner wrote:

Boy Joerg really nailed it at 9:40 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourco ... g_288p.mp4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks for that link.

the best line was his take on the omerta in cycling: "No, it's not like the Mafia. The Mafia is a lot better."

sawyer · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:50 pm

Is anyone on this forum still sticking up for this guy?

Rick · **Joined:** Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm **Posts:** 1185

sawyer wrote:

Is anyone on this forum still sticking up for this guy?

I guess I am.
"Guilty" or not, I see this as a witch hunt motivated by the hope of extracting money from Armstrong.
I am not defending cheating, but his cheating was no worse than most of the other top racers of his time. Lance just actually won races and made a lot of money. Hence the witch-hunt to "get him".
Some of the side issues that invariably get mentioned:
A young, successful athlete was "arrogant and narcissistic".....Boo frikken Hoo. When has that ever been a reason hate them ?!?!?
He "ruined peoples lives"....because he kicked people who were hostile to him off the team, etc ? Boo Hoo.
(Now if he really made death threats or anything, that is a felony and should be prosecuted like any felony. )

So my "defense" may be weak, but I just think the whole lance thing is blown totally out of proportion only because he was actually the most talented and succesful.

stella-azzurra · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:52 pm

Well Armstrong is the classical bully in school who is insecure about himself and will beat up on the weak kids in the class.
When he grows up and gets a bit of money and power he refines his craft by getting other people to do it for him.
As far as talent goes Armstrong has talent and always will. Most of us will never have that talent to begin with no matter how hard we try. But at the pro level everyone is as talented as you and it then comes down to training, discipline and the mind. Armstrong has all three but to be successful and still be better than his talented cohorts he will resort to get that extra edge through any means.
Money, fame, winning, keeping your job drive all of this and everyone does something to improve their chances of keeping themselves employed.

dereksmalls · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:39 pm

So Bruyneel is planning another book. Why don't they just front up to WADA and USADA? Because they'd be f**cked basically. Much safer to put in writing that they can earn off, and leave out half the facts

wassertreter · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:56 pm

Rick wrote:

"Guilty" or not, I see this as a witch hunt motivated by the hope of extracting money from Armstrong.

Only that USADA and those who might seek compensation are different entities.

Also, I find the notion that he lost USD75m the day his sponsors gave him the boot interesting. As if it'd been righteously his in the first place. All the money earned from his TdF fame is tainted. Not that I'd care personally though, big corporations are blowing dough on lots of shit.

swinter · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:24 pm

wassertreter
not only that, but the money people are hoping to "extract" is the very money that LA obtained by lying through his teeth. SCA and the London Times want back the money they shelled out on the basis of LA's testimony and other protestations that he had never doped; Floyd is seeking a share of the money that LA and Postal defrauded from the US government (under a law that's been on the books since the Civil War, BTW, in case anyone is interested in such things).

btompkins0112 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:24 pm

Tainted maybe; however, the money has been made by the sponsors, so them requesting/demanding it back is rather disingenuous after they reeped the monetary rewards from him already.

Will Armstrong confess??

Who is online