Lance Armstrong about to go down on 60minutes.

I think he doped. But how could he win all those times without getting caught? (besides that one time or whatever when there was a messed up test). How do they do it?

Wow, the most remarkable thing about that clip is the change in Tyler Hamilton. Anyone, who had seen him in interviews during his cycling days would wonder who the hell is that twitching, fidgeting nutjob? He used to be a normal guy, a little bashful, but Lord knows what is wrong with him now. He's probably correct about Armstrong using, but it's anyone's guess whether the guy is telling the truth or cognizant of reality. Truly a sad fall for Hamilton. Whoever said Armstrong is blessed by his enemies reminds of Voltaire's line which goes, "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." That could have been written by Armstrong.

It's funny, after all the huffing, puffing and wringing of hands about who is clean and who isn't, it turns out they were all dirty and the question was moot.

I'm not saying Armstrong did or didn't dope, but that interview did not sway my opinion towards thinking that he did. Hamilton did not look comfortable saying what he was saying. He may suspect that Lance doped. Lance may have told him he doped. I don't believe he saw him inject anything, he just looked like he was lying.

Lance paid off Hamilton to do that so that he can paint ALL his accusers as weasely little liars lol

There are mountains of evidence. Cyclingnews, the clinic: educate yourselves.

No Way wrote:

Hamilton did not look comfortable saying what he was saying. . . . he just looked like he was lying.

Tyler has had so much practice lying to so many people for so many years that he probably looks uncomfortable when he tries to tell the truth for a change.

In any event, I'm guessing that he's just telling CBS the same stuff that he told the grand jury that is currently considering charges against Lance Armstrong. It probably wouldn't be a very good idea to tell a grand jury one thing under penalty of perjury, and then give a very different story on national television. Despite what Armstrong's flacks and lawyers are saying, Tyler seems to have little to gain, and a huge amount to lose, by making up stories about Armstrong's doping and his own doping.

Little to gain??

Attention, sympathy, redemption, money, allies....

Avocado's Number wrote:

No Way wrote:

Hamilton did not look comfortable saying what he was saying. . . . he just looked like he was lying.

Tyler has had so much practice lying to so many people for so many years that he probably looks uncomfortable when he tries to tell the truth for a change.

In any event, I'm guessing that he's just telling CBS the same stuff that he told the grand jury that is currently considering charges against Lance Armstrong. It probably wouldn't be a very good idea to tell a grand jury one thing under penalty of perjury, and then give a very different story on national television. Despite what Armstrong's flacks and lawyers are saying, Tyler seems to have little to gain, and a huge amount to lose, by making up stories about Armstrong's doping and his own doping.

little to gain?? publicity, selling books?? can't race anymore...what does he do now? there is zero reason, other than to get in the spotlight, to go on television at this point (ten years later) without any PROOF. Lance has been accused for ten years! where is the proof! he adds nothing.

fakelandis wrote:

There are mountains of evidence. Cyclingnews, the clinic: educate yourselves.

see also Cozy Beehive blog - there were/are many ways to ensure a negative including plain old payoffs to the testers.

conspiracy theories hold no water. where is the EVIDENCE? nobody in all these years has any f-ing EVIDENCE?? all it is is a FEW people he worked with saying he doped. and THEY all doped, AND/OR had something to gain from saying it.

AND the riders accusing him have all lied in regards to doping and their knowledge of it - meaning? - zero credibility.

and again, even if Lance "probably" doped, nobody seems to have ANY EVIDENCE of it. Gone on for far too long for people within the sport to just keep saying he doped. Don't even know how this is news. Nobody has ANYTHING??

Is this debate about the evidence or is it about the truth?

There IS evidence, but it's validity has been disputed by Armstrong's impressive legal teams. Are we debating the merits of the evidence and the case for or against admitting it in court?

Or are we debating the likelihood that he doped? In which case the overwhelming circumstantial evidence must be considered.

The legal standard is heavily biased in favor of the accused and is therefore not a best indicator of the truth - in fact it's specifically designed to not be. If we're debating whether he actually doped, hiding behind the legal standard of evidence is invalid and it's like admitting defeat right off the bat.

I'm interested in the truth - I couldn't care less about the legality of the available evidence. Only people with a vested interested in the case need to bother with that. None of us will be better off if they award Armstrong's victories to Ullrich, Beloki or Basso... oh wait!

gone on far too long? as if there's no possible way he could hide it this long if it were true?

yeah, just like there's no possible way that ahhhnold could hide the fact that he had a kid over ten freaking years ago with his ugly houskeeper. sure, keep smoking that good stuff. or drink the lance kool aid, or whatever.

it's about EVIDENCE at this point. how much time and money has been spent trying to convince he's guilty? it's insane.

for one - almost everyone was doping(according to these dopers). so who cares if he won by doping. the people saying lance doped are saying everyone was doping including themselves. if lance was doped, he beat other dopers. still the best. seems plausible to assume that if NOBODY doped, Lance would still win. IF the prosecutors can't find you guilty after TEN YEARS, give it up. what is to prove at this point?? i just dont get it. if nobody has EVIDENCE that can be presented in court, then just shut up. the only reason to come forward at this point is for personal gain or to smear someone that was better than you.

PresMustache wrote:

if nobody has EVIDENCE that can be presented in court, then just shut up.

Your comments indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes admissible evidence in court.

also, just cause this sort of thing pisses me off( like accusers of Bekele ect.), not EVERYONE was/is doping in cycling/running. it's not even questionable.

so you cannot ASSUME lance was doping, even if other top racers were busted and point fingers.

he's been tested more than any other athlete, in and out of comp.

SO, is it POSSIBLE that he was clean? of course.

Is it possible Bekele is clean and slaughtering doping runners? yes.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to comprehend.

When someone comes forward without a contridicting story, and with nothing to gain,(no book, not convicted of doping ect.), then i will REALLY believe that Lance maybe doped.

Avocado's Number wrote:

PresMustache wrote:

if nobody has EVIDENCE that can be presented in court, then just shut up.

Your comments indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes admissible evidence in court.

what's to misunderstand?

we live in america, and in america you need to be proven guilty in court. lance hasn't been proven guilty, here, or anywhere. don't like that?

circumstantial evidence is not a guilty verdict.

since it's so easy for you guys to say who doped, who didn't dope?

PresMustache

You appear to be emotionally invested in Lance Armstrong and the notion that he either did not use performance enhancing drugs, or, if he did use them, it is of no matter, since everybody did. Your adamant defense of him is symptomatic of one who will no longer think lucidly on the subject due to having a horse in the race. Think twice before your next post.