It'll be the Marion Jones interview all over again.
It'll be the Marion Jones interview all over again.
POD. I'm happy to see records fall, and quite content knowing I will never be pumped full of some drug breaking them.
Bad Wigins wrote:
How many decades have sports tried to eliminate PED's, and what have they achieved, absolutely nothing. Not because it can't be done, but because the sports themselves are corrupt from the inside out. Pro sports are about making money, and there's no money to be made if there are no PED's. Using every possible advantage to win is the driving force.
That is why other forms of cheating are not only allowed, they are tradition. For example, putting pacemakers in track races is cheating. It gives runners a physical advantage and allows them to go faster. It's as dishonest as a wind-assisted sprint. But it has been done for decades and results occasionally in records, which makes money, so it is allowed.
Imagine pacemaking being banned. There go all the European meets. No more sub 3:30's, ever. Nobody will watch track anymore. The sport would go broke.
That's the same thing that would happen if track really did eliminate PED's. Same for cycling. If performances regress, the sports will go into recession, and so the investors who set the rules and pull the strings see to it that PED's are not eliminated.
LA almost surely was a doper. Cycling protected him for a long time, but then USADA, for shamelessly self-promoting reasons, decided to put him against the wall, and cycling threw him under the bus. But cycling is not going to change one little bit. LA is just the fall guy for a tradition as old as cycling itself. As long as all eyes are on LA, they won't be on the sponsors and organizers who enable and profit from PED's, and they will easily figure out how to keep things as they are.
If you really want drug-free sports, you must decide if you can do without the sponsors and the big money. There won't be records anymore. There won't be many good competitions. They won't be putting it on TV. It'll be crap. PED's are cheating, but that's how it is. Cheating's traditional now. You won't recognize the sport without it.
Rojo, you are the one who is incorrect. Lance did not refuse to go to trial. He refused to participate in an arbitration and actually filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the fairness of the process. The federal judge denied Lance's injunction, but did not rule on the merits of USADA's doping allegations.
Prison???!!! What is your evidence of perjury? Novitzky's federal case was dropped. Was Lance ever even subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury (like George, Tyler, etc.)?
I agree with your call for a strong anti-doping movement, but what is with your obsession with/vendetta against a certain retired cyclist? Was he not also a victim of being "forced to either do PEDs or be uncompetitive"? Read "The Secret Race", "Breaking the Chain", and/or the cyclists' affidavits attached to the USADA report and you will know more than you ever wanted about the culture of doping in cycling that existed well before Lance beat cancer and then crushed the competition.
I am looking forward to the interview and suggest that if Lance asks for forgiveness that you give it some consideration.
The impending Bruyneel hearing is forcing Lance's hand. It's likely his mea culpa is devoid of any personal responsibility and instead chucks these guys under the bus.
Oprah will soft pitch pre-approved questions, and Lance will respond with pre-determined legally-wise answers.
I suspect he will indirectly admin to drug use, downplaying the extent to which he was involved. Everyone else was doing it, so I had to too.
As far as the legal implications (i.e. civil lawsuits), I think he has some financial backing (maybe from Oprah herself) that will subsidize those costs.
His ultimate goal is to 1) put on a speedo and race tris again, and 2) be forgiven (and forgotten) by the general public duped by and supporting his "charity".
Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Prison???!!! What is your evidence of perjury? Novitzky's federal case was dropped. Was Lance ever even subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury (like George, Tyler, etc.)? .
In the 2006 SCA/Tailwind civil suit Lance, under oath, denied doping - i.e. perjured himself.
Nutella1 wrote:
So here is what he will say:
- "We all were looking for ways to improve our performance"
- "we were in this system together"
- "I apologize if anyone feels betrayed"
- "Jan, Joseba, Andy, they all knew who came first in the tour"
- "I will do anything to help cycling to become popular again"
- "I have helped millions of cancer patients"
- "I love my kids"
lol, you made me laugh. you nailed it.
i bet he would just make a generalized statement but never personally say he's sorry to lemond. lance is just too bitter and stubborn.
He'll probably admit to doping sometime between 1997 and 2003 but claim that he's been clean since.
brownsmith89 wrote:
i bet he would just make a generalized statement but never personally say he's sorry to lemond. lance is just too bitter and stubborn.
Yes, that's what I meant. No chance in hell he apologizes to Lemond, Betsy, Floyd,...
He he wants to make sure Oprah goes easy or even down on him he should slap on an Obama mask.
She is not a good hard hitting interviewer.
I feel like either J.R. is a highly effective troll or just somebody who doesn't understand science at all.
ggthdd wrote:
Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:Prison???!!! What is your evidence of perjury? Novitzky's federal case was dropped. Was Lance ever even subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury (like George, Tyler, etc.)? .
In the 2006 SCA/Tailwind civil suit Lance, under oath, denied doping - i.e. perjured himself.
The 2006 SCA/Tailwind matter was a civil arbitration that both sides elected to settle without any decision from the arbitrator. In the settlement both sides agreed to a mutual release of all past and future claims whether based on known or unknown facts. After that settlement there was no longer any actionable claim for any false statement by any party to the arbitration.
me and my banana seat wrote:
I find it silly why people care so much how fast a grown man can ride a bicycle.
Tour De France is more a test of how long can I ride a bike faster than everyone else rather than if I can ride it faster.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Well said
For the idiots who still think he was innoccent or did not fail a test. if you have 10 witnesses who testify that you shot someone they don't need to find the gun
I'm going to pay 10 "witnesses" under the table(or maybe they'll do it out of spite or jealousy for you, or to make sure they don't get in too much trouble for their own crimes) to testify that you are a child molester. It is therefore okay that they don't need any proof to make sure you aren't a uk athletics coach anymore, and you will go on your merry way without challenging me, correct?
boomheadshot wrote:
I'm going to pay 10 "witnesses" under the table(or maybe they'll do it out of spite or jealousy for you, or to make sure they don't get in too much trouble for their own crimes) to testify that you are a child molester. It is therefore okay that they don't need any proof to make sure you aren't a uk athletics coach anymore, and you will go on your merry way without challenging me, correct?
Keep in mind that those 10 witnesses were his best friends at some point. So while this may not sufficient proof for you that he doped, it is certainly a proof that either:
1. Those 10 friends are jackazzes, or that
2. LA is a jackazz
Nutella1 wrote:
Keep in mind that those 10 witnesses were his best friends at some point. So while this may not sufficient proof for you that he doped, it is certainly a proof that either:
1. Those 10 friends are jackazzes, or that
2. LA is a jackazz
The example he used was to show that 10 eyewitnesses do not result in a guilty verdict. At a minimum, you also need a gunshot victim (positive drug test).
Blah, blah, blah... wrote:
Nutella1 wrote:Keep in mind that those 10 witnesses were his best friends at some point. So while this may not sufficient proof for you that he doped, it is certainly a proof that either:
1. Those 10 friends are jackazzes, or that
2. LA is a jackazz
The example he used was to show that 10 eyewitnesses do not result in a guilty verdict. At a minimum, you also need a gunshot victim (positive drug test).
A positive drug test.... which they have... (probably several)
Come on ladies, are you all really this ignorant? Lance doped, he lied, and he benefited greatly from this lie.
rojo wrote:
J.R. wrote:Lance won't confess. He's going to talk about the witch hung and how he was refused a fair trial. I agree with him.
You have it incorrect. Lance was not refused a fair trial. Far from it. Just the opposite really. He refused to go to trial.
Lance belongs in prison for perjury.
He lied under oath about PEDs. I could care less about the tactics USADA used to nail him. I personally think the players unions have it all wrong in terms of PED tests. They think it's an invasion of privacy. Far from it. Rigorous testing at all hours of the night, all over the globe is actually great for pro athletes. Why? Because without it - they will be forced to either do PEDs or be uncompetitive. If there is a strong anti-doping movement, then they can rely on talent and hard work to take them to the top.
Oprah? I can't believe. What a freaking low life.
I guess he knows that Oprah fell for Marion's lies so he thinks it will happen again.
Re: “Oprah? I can't believe. What a freaking low life.”
Assuming I am not misunderstanding you, calling Oprah a low-life in this situation is a really low-blow. The Oprah Winfrey show is not a news show, and she is not a journalist or more specifically, an investigative journalist. Her job is not to uncover the truth, 50% of her job is the get the person on the show and she is the only person who has gotten Lance to do nationally televised interview. You have to commend her for that. The other 50% of her job is make the interview entertaining, after all, she is in the entertainment business. Oprah’s constituency is the shareholders in her company and the viewing public, which consist of 10s of millions of people. It is not Oprah’s job to ask questions and uncover facts that are important to the Letsrun community. Oprah Winfrey is a very good interviewer, arguably one of the best and I think she gets it right most of the time. Keep in mind that there will probably be some negotiated limits to what Oprah can ask and Lance we be legally astute, conniving or whatever you want to call it enough to not answer certain questions. There are 10s of millions of people looking forward to the interview and will enjoy it no matter what gets asked or answered…unless you get to interview Lance yourself, it won’t be perfect. – With that said, I am a part of the Letsrun community and hope she asks some of the questions we are interested in and don’t let Lance off easily, but if she doesn’t, I am not going to call her a “freaking low life.”
Btw, this is not about defending Oprah per se, I just thought it was somewhat juvenile and selfish to call a person who has done so much good in her life, a “freaking low life” just because she is not going to deliver Lance to you on a silver platter, cooked and spiced just the way you want it.
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
Come on ladies, are you all really this ignorant? Lance doped, he lied, and he benefited greatly from this lie.
^End of discussion regarding Lance and doping.
Back to the Oprah show...
Softball questions, no definitive answers. He can't afford a full confession. Lance desperately needs the attention and is hoping that he can somehow remain relevant and rich.
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
A positive drug test.... which they have... (probably several)
Which would have to coincide with the witnesses testimony regarding dates and times. If Andreau "saw" Lance use a syringe with unknown contents in 2002, but a positive test was not consistent with the timeline, then you'd have strong circumstancial evidence, along the lines "where there's smoke, there's fire", but not enough for a guilty.
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
Come on ladies, are you all really this ignorant? Lance doped, he lied, and he benefited greatly from this lie.
Yes, you're probably 100% right on the money. But OJ was probably guilty. Casey Anthony was probably guilty (and the list goes on).
Assuming you could prove the "perjury", you would advocate sending someone to prison for false statements during a deposition in a civil case that was ultimately settled with mutual release? Maybe we should bring back debtors prisons too!