Breaking News: Lance will admit he doped

This smacks of your typical "do anything to win, no regrets" dirty political tactics Lance has also tied himself to over the years. But hey, even Lee Atwater apologized for his misguided actions, even if it was on his deathbed.

PhoenixRunner wrote:

Hate to say it. I smell a book deal already. Even in scandal this guy still rakes in the dough. Gotta hand it to him. A champ.

Taylor Hamilton, "Been there, done that."

anon wrote:

The idea that Lance cost people money is laughable. So many entities made money on Lance it's not even funny. He was a cash cow for Nike, for instance.

Every cheaters cost non-cheaters a lot of money.

Only clean competitive athletes understand this I guess.

What's really laughable is how many people think that just because allmost everyone cheats, then it's okay to cheat.

Their assumptions that all drugs and cheating strategies are created equal reflect the depth of their ignorance which is truly laughable.

I don't care if businesses made a bunch of money on Lance's back. I'm glad if his cancer fight and related businesses saved even just one life and keeps making millions.

But, winning any competitive events by cheating is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

Pro or not pro just follow the rules of the game like most of us do or play another game.

Running Patrol wrote:

Every cheaters cost non-cheaters a lot of money.

Only clean competitive athletes understand this I guess.

What's really laughable is how many people think that just because allmost everyone cheats, then it's okay to cheat.

Their assumptions that all drugs and cheating strategies are created equal reflect the depth of their ignorance which is truly laughable.

I don't care if businesses made a bunch of money on Lance's back. I'm glad if his cancer fight and related businesses saved even just one life and keeps making millions.

But, winning any competitive events by cheating is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

Pro or not pro just follow the rules of the game like most of us do or play another game.

Amen. On top of that lets not forget that him taking HGH accelerated his cancer disease which made him rich.

Also, his Livestrong foundation was built mostly for cheap PR, nothing else.

J.R.,The bike mechanic was unfortunate enough to find a box of medicine in an apartment in Spain, which was the beginning of the end of their whirlwind partnership.There was a kind of verbal and e-mail agreement to help open a bike shop later (sounds like the same agreement with "motoman"), but this was retracted when their "partnership" went sour.After 10 months of litigation, and being on the receiving end of Armstrong's spinning and legal machine, Anderson felt that there was no way to restore his damaged reputation in Austin, and sold everything to move him and his family to New Zealand (who were giving out permanent residences to bike mechanics due to their own shortage).If you believe there are two sides to every story, here they are:http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html?page=allhttp://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Lance-Armstrong-Responds-to-Mike-Anderson.html

J.R. wrote:

And I've never heard of the bike mechanic.

No one would give him a job cause of Lance??????

I hope you meant "EPIC FAILURE".I'd agree that sponsors are not victims. They keep relationships with moneymakers. For sponsors, truth and morality doesn't matter as much as the bottom line. The victims are not corporate sponsors, but the many individuals who dared to speak their mind, or decided not to lie for Lance. While the gravy train was gaining speed, there were reporters, authors, newspapers, a team soigneur, a mechanic, and ex-cyclists who opted for honesty and integrity, left for dead at the side of the tracks.

missing link wrote:

SPIC FAILURE not understanding how sponsorships work.

Are you really dumb enough to think that a sponsor gives money without getting something in return?

All sponsors analyze the investment versus the return. If someone can make them money they keep sponsoring them. If someone can't make them money they are cast aside. That is the way the real world works.

Here's what I'm wondering:

If Lance admits to breaking the rules, will this finally constitute "evidence" for the remaining deniers?

When Landis "came clean", he was accused by Lance of being a pathological liar who would say whatever benefits Landis at the moment. If Lance finally comes forward, and says he's guilty on all counts, and everyone was right about him all along (except his loyal followers), could we believe him, as he himself publicly transforms into the same pathological liar? I'd find myself asking, what does Lance have to gain by publicly admitting anything. Is there an angle he's playing, to maximize benefits for Lance? Would he tell the "whole truth", or a craftfully created version of the truth that suits him?

Here is what I am pondering about the whole thing:

Would he admit to using or would he also admit to trafficking?

Would he admit to (and expose) covering up positives with the help of the UCI?

If the purpose of confessing is to be able to compete again, well, it seems this is likely to involve significant time off. I don't see how USADA could reinstate him (for coming clean and telling the truth) if he does not admit trafficking, given the evidence they have. If he does admit trafficking then I have a hard time seeing any "reduced suspension" being less than 4 years. Those are serious charges.

I do not see a confession coming at this time, as I can't see one that gets him what is his ultimate goal. Unless the ultimate goal is public attention and/or money, in which case a confession that implicates the UCI would do it.

Good point. It's too easy to forget the charges and sanctioning and evidence went way beyond simply getting caught in one single instance using a banned substance, or practice.

For example, working with Dr. Ferrari was eventually banned, and Lance announce that the relation was formally terminated, yet there was e-mail correspondence with Dr. Ferrari's son, about training. That single fact alone is sanctionable, or at least triable.

Any confession, if it is to have any meaning, will have to answer a lot of questions, and include apologies to a lot of people.

His barrier is that coming clean opens up a lot of legal issues, something way beyond simple "sports federation" rules. If he is smart, and he is, he will settle these issues before coming clean, so that more lawsuits don't spring up.

rekrunner wrote:

While the gravy train was gaining speed, there were reporters, authors, newspapers, a team soigneur, a mechanic, and ex-cyclists who opted for honesty and integrity, left for dead at the side of the tracks.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

rekrunner wrote:

If Lance admits to breaking the rules, will this finally constitute "evidence" for the remaining deniers?

It would confirm what we already know, which is that he was convicted with no trial, no evidence, and is guilty of that.

rekrunner wrote:

For example, working with Dr. Ferrari was eventually banned, and Lance announce that the relation was formally terminated, yet there was e-mail correspondence with Dr. Ferrari's son, about training. That single fact alone is sanctionable, or at least triable.

I actually believe you are incorrect here. Dr. Ferrari was banned but working with a banned individual has never been an offense under the WADA code. The next revision may address this issue. UCI may also have had their own rules, I admit I do not know that. Regardless the optics of working with a banned individual were horrible but it was not a sanctionable offense as far as I can tell.

I wonder how all the Lance fanboys will react to this. Those idiot chumps that defended this tool, this total @sshole like he was their brother.

Maybe you are right. I'm sure there was a period where it was banned to work with Dr. Ferrari (before 2012), but since you raise the doubt, maybe I'm mixing it up with something else.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I actually believe you are incorrect here. Dr. Ferrari was banned but working with a banned individual has never been an offense under the WADA code. The next revision may address this issue. UCI may also have had their own rules, I admit I do not know that. Regardless the optics of working with a banned individual were horrible but it was not a sanctionable offense as far as I can tell.

Lance wasn't convicted, but simply declared ineligible to participate in some sporting events due to his actions violating rules.There can be no trial, as no laws were broken, and parties agreed to settle disputes in arbitration.If by trial, you mean "due process", he voluntarily waived his right to argue his case, by not electing to go to arbitration. To the extent that there was no trial, this was the affirmative choice of Lance. We could understand a "newbie" athlete not having the means or the knowledge, to defend himself, but Lance, armed with his team of lawyers, and his financial backing, opted to plead "no contest".And there is clearly a lot of evidence: besides numerous "positive" drug tests (at least 8, not counting the 2009-2010 comeback) of the kind that constitute evidence, there is lots of direct witness testimony, e-mails, transcripts of depositions of trials, etc. Maybe much of this evidence could be contested, or explained, but the one primarily interested in clearing his name, plead "no contest".

J.R. wrote:

It would confirm what we already know, which is that he was convicted with no trial, no evidence, and is guilty of that.

rekrunner wrote:

If by trial, you mean "due process", he voluntarily waived his right to argue his case, by not electing to go to arbitration.

Armstrong wanted a trial, and a trial was refused.

So much for your theory.

Huh! wrote:

He will do it Super Bowl weekend so that there is a big event going on at the same time and it wont be the only big story of the day.

If he does admit on SB weekend, expect the network to interrupt the game to make that announcement. That will be bigger news the MJ's retirement.

It's no big deal.

The whole story will be like a healed mosquito bite after a week. The rah-rahers of his guilt will pack up and go lie under the trees their tongues panting out of their mouths, slobbering waiting to be thrown another pork chop. Old ladies will tell LA he did the right thing and then will grab his hands softly and say "I'm glad you were under the care of doctor" , and pass him some old lemon flavored cookies. Hence the doctors will tip their hats and smile when approached by a LA and say "Bravo, good old boy, bravo! The wounds have healed. Fortunately, the scabs will fall off!" Coily they will say "Good thing it wasn't on the vagina walls!, heh old boy" The sub four minute high school miler will run in their heads "L.A. bully for you old chap, bully for you."

Huh? He wanted a trial to stop the arbitration. Or in the alternative, be investigated by the UCI. He wasn't arguing to be tried in court.He claimed that USADA lacked jurisdiction, and that USADA's process lacked due process. The judge disagreed, and said there was an adequate process, and the jurisdiction argument should rightly be made there.

J.R. wrote:

Armstrong wanted a trial, and a trial was refused.

So much for your theory.