Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

“Lance Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution. He rejected it.”

 

 

 

I am not sure what he means by it, but on the face of it this quote from the statement issued by USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the 10
th
seems to contradict your point.

 

 

.

You really believe that? Sure he was invited to spill the beans - doesn't mean he was offered a free pass. From what I understand the softer deal may have been not going beyond the statute of limitations on expunging his results - thats about it.

 

For the record, again, I am not suggesting Armstrong was right or justified in not coming forward...

Posted

You really believe that? Sure he was invited to spill the beans - doesn't mean he was offered a free pass. From what I understand the softer deal may have been not going beyond the statute of limitations on expunging his results - thats about it.

 

For the record, again, I am not suggesting Armstrong was right or justified in not coming forward...

 

Tygart told the USA Today that co-operation from Armstrong would have resulted in USADA stripping him only of his 2004 and 2005 wins.

"[if Armstrong had of] come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute [of limitations] should apply," Tygart said.

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-armstrong-could-have-retained-five-tour-wins

Posted (edited)

Liggett recieved an email, an sms actually

 

When they test Strongarms lawyers for drinking, they should test Phil as well.

 

Someone mention Liggett?

http://cdn4.media.cyclingnews.futurecdn.net//2011/03/16/1/lance_armstrong_phil_liggett_220.jpg

Liggett has been a constant supporter of Armstrong through the rider’s career and through numerous doping allegations. He admitted to not having read the report, with his information has been second hand through news sources. He told Cyclingnews: “It is a witch hunt, lets face it, because they only want Lance. Call it what you like, the fact is they only have one ambition and that’s to get Lance.”

“If he’s been taking drugs then of course it’s right [to sanction] but they still lack the absolute proof as far as I’m aware. I still am a supporter of Armstrong. Whatever way we look at it Lance has been good for the sport. No one can condone, if it’s finally proved, that he’s ridden his whole career on drugs. I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”

Edited by TNT1
Posted

Liggett recieved an email, an sms actually

 

When they test Strongarms lawyers for drinking, they should test Phil as well.

 

Someone mention Liggett?

http://cdn4.media.cyclingnews.futurecdn.net//2011/03/16/1/lance_armstrong_phil_liggett_220.jpg

Liggett has been a constant supporter of Armstrong through the rider’s career and through numerous doping allegations. He admitted to not having read the report, with his information has been second hand through news sources. He told Cyclingnews: “It is a witch hunt, lets face it, because they only want Lance. Call it what you like, the fact is they only have one ambition and that’s to get Lance.”

“If he’s been taking drugs then of course it’s right [to sanction] but they still lack the absolute proof as far as I’m aware. I still am a supporter of Armstrong. Whatever way we look at it Lance has been good for the sport. No one can condone, if it’s finally proved, that he’s ridden his whole career on drugs. I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”

 

shouldnt he be in a special care facility?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout