Jump to content

LA Interview


no calves

Recommended Posts

Psychopaths don't feel remorse or guilt.

Don't do an authentic sorry either.

 

Sorry would be hollow if he wants "I'll take a life ban if others receive the same... Or 6 months if others are banned for 6..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DieBees

I think Lance is an arrogant prick..... And I have an even bigger problem with bullies, he was both!

 

However I feel very strong about a level playing ground and also the consistency on sanctions against riders...

 

And you know what, he did not sit in front of the TV and doped him to a seven year victor in the TDF. He trained and worked for it! Yes he is a complete arse! But facts are facts!

Edited by DieBees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An arse who trains and an arse who watches TV - I don't get the distinction?

 

Lance's arse was treated fair and square by USADA, and if not, he had ample opportunity, legal council and funds (at the time) to challenge their judgement in court.

 

He chose not to do this.

 

Instead he whines about the injustice to Oprah Winfrey and anyone else who will listen. On the tv. Whilst the other arses are out training.

 

http://www.cycling.tv/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=20300&ATCLID=209306942

 

 

Excerpts from interview with USADA's Travis Tygart

November 14, 2013 - By Associated Press

 

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) - Excerpts from an Associated Press interview with USADA chief executive Travis Tygart, who led the American anti-doping agency's case against Lance Armstrong that resulted in the cyclist being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life in 2012:

 

---

 

On Armstrong's comments that he was singled out by USADA and not offered the same deal as other riders who doped and received lesser bans:

 

''We spent, I don't know, a week to 10 days talking, various phone calls with his lawyers. We sent him a letter saying, `We want you to be truthful.' Their response was: `Your process is a charade. We've never doped. Get lost.' And so we were forced. You can go back and play some semantic game if you want to. The reality is at that point he attempted to bankrupt us and win the case against us and continued to conceal the truth. ... We gave him the opportunity to come in and be truthful.''

 

---

 

On the possibility of Armstrong's life ban being reduced if he cooperates with the United States Anti-Doping Agency's ongoing investigation into doping in cycling:

 

''I think it's premature (to talk about it) until he comes in and is truthful on all fronts. Technically it's legally possible under the WADA code that currently exists. That said, it all depends on the assistance and the value. Certainly the value of the information is less today than it was 12 months ago or back in June of 2012 when we were bringing the case.

 

''And clean athletes have suffered, to a certain extent, because of his delay and his refusal to come in. That said, we're overly hopeful and we want it to happen. It ultimately would be good for the sport, which is our goal. It would be good for him. It would help him for the public forgiving if he was finally truthful on all fronts.''

 

---

 

On Armstrong's claims of a ''vendetta'' against him by USADA:

 

''If it was some personal vendetta, we'd say lifetime ban and we're done. And see you next lifetime. And that's not at all what we've said. In fact, we met in December, we rearranged holiday schedules to meet with them again in January. ... They led us to believe he was coming in to be fully truthful and candid and we were more than willing to take advantage of the opportunity.

 

''So, the facts clearly demonstrate we've been nothing but fair in doing our job. And, yes, we had to hold him - as well as all the others that cheated the system for the time that they did - accountable, but that's our job. Nothing more, nothing less.''

 

---

 

On Armstrong's insistence that he rode the 2009 and 2010 Tour de France races clean:

 

''As far as we're concerned at this point, the Armstrong piece of this is over. It's a final legal binding decision. And make no mistake, he exercised his right not to challenge anything. And so, all of these after-the-fact rationalizations and accusations, he gave up his legal right knowingly and intentionally on the advice of some of the top lawyers in the world not to challenge it.

 

''He certainly could have gone and challenged any pieces, our motives, any pieces of the sanction, the length of the sanctions ... the disqualification (from the Tour) in 2009 and 2010. That was a legally viable option for him in front of independent arbitrators and they obviously chose not to do that.''

 

---

 

On the future of cycling and the importance of a truth and reconciliation commission under the UCI's new leadership in the wake of the sport's doping scandals:

 

''To get to the bottom of the dark culture during that time is critically important for the success of the sport going forward. And I think there's a real opportunity now, with a new leadership of UCI, and I think I'm as confident as I've ever been.

 

''We've had multiple meetings and discussions directly with them (the UCI). We obviously appreciate their good faith interest in learning from what we saw. Because, look, we've heard the stories. We sat down with 20-plus riders and others who were confronted with that decision to dope and you hear the stories and you have compassion, but an understanding of the tensions that exist within a sport culture.''

 

---

 

On Armstrong:

 

''Look, we're compassionate and forgiving people, and he was really no worse than a lot of the teammates that were in his team and others in the pro-peloton from that standpoint. He was the one that won, obviously. He was the one that profited the most. But we decided at the very beginning to treat all the athletes the same, including him, even though there were probably very good arguments why he should have been treated differently.''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read his interviews the only thing he is sorry about is his comeback in 2009. If he didn't make a comeback he would never have been caught. He keeps saying that.

 

LA always said he never tested positive but he did, he used bribes, cover-ups and lies (like retroactive TUE) to get away with it. Some other riders of that era were never caught, so were they clean or not ?????

 

So maybe not a level playing field like he believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DieBees

At least the sport is clean now, I can sleep at night knowing that all is right in the world

 

Exactly! When he came clean the petrol price dropped. Im off my medication and my wife moved back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the sport is clean now, I can sleep at night knowing that all is right in the world

Yup, since LA came clean all doping in ALL sports has stopped :-)

 

And we live in Lala land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read his interviews the only thing he is sorry about is his comeback in 2009. If he didn't make a comeback he would never have been caught. He keeps saying that.

 

LA always said he never tested positive but he did, he used bribes, cover-ups and lies (like retroactive TUE) to get away with it. Some other riders of that era were never caught, so were they clean or not ?????

 

So maybe not a level playing field like he believes.

Not every cyclist was tested .... and some less/more than others. It would be logical that winner/top finishes would get tested more and as such get caught more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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