Author Topic: Bye Lance (Read 284913 times)

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #1625 on:** 26 February, 2013, 09:52:19 am »

He has been paying those expensive lawyers for a reason.

padbeat · « **Reply #1626 on:** 26 February, 2013, 11:02:02 am »

We're clearly past the point of guilt/innocence and into the realms of who has the better lawyers/most money/will to win. It's going to be 2-3 years before this gets to a result with appeals processes and so on.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #1627 on:** 26 February, 2013, 03:39:29 pm »

The really interesting bit is what the drug companies and cancer doctors knew. Armstrong would have had to tell the cancer specialists what he was on in order that they could treat him. That's what Betsy Andreu witnessed. The big question is how complicit they were when he returned to racing.
There's an argument that Armstrong would have needed EPO and hormones as part of his treatment. But that doesn't excuse his whole team being on PEDs.

clarion · « **Reply #1628 on:** 26 February, 2013, 03:42:40 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 26 February, 2013, 09:52:19 am

He has been paying those expensive lawyers for a reason.

Nail. Head. Sadly.

welshwheels · « **Reply #1629 on:** 15 March, 2013, 09:12:34 pm »

From one of the red tops

sg37409 · « **Reply #1630 on:** 27 March, 2013, 10:57:13 pm »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-spanish-criminal-investigation-of-armstrong

I wonder if the spanish anti-doping authorities will clamp down on him as hard as they did with Contador or any other top spanish ~~doper~~ rider.

clarion · « **Reply #1631 on:** 28 March, 2013, 09:54:41 am »

Did you mention Nadal? I hope not, as he is a clean national hero, and not a drug cheat at all in any way, no. Not that.

caerau · « **Reply #1632 on:** 04 April, 2013, 09:38:12 am »

ooh look, he's back

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22023732

Andrew · « **Reply #1633 on:** 04 April, 2013, 09:52:56 am »

In fairness, the USADA ban does not prevent him having a life, and he is a competitor, so what else is the guy to do?

I don't like the guy and think he's deserved the punishment he's so far gotten (and there'll be more to come) but I don't expect him to stay in his room for the rest of his life.

Tim Hall · « **Reply #1634 on:** 04 April, 2013, 04:48:49 pm »

And out again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22023732

Quote

Lance Armstrong has withdrawn from the Masters South Central Zone Swimming Championships in Texas this weekend after an objection from swimming's international governing body.

caerau · « **Reply #1635 on:** 04 April, 2013, 04:50:55 pm »

FFS

Justin(e) · « **Reply #1636 on:** 08 April, 2013, 04:31:12 pm »

I know he used to have a financial stake in RadioShack. Is he still collecting on wins like Fabians's at P-R & Tour of Flanders?

Biff · « **Reply #1637 on:** 13 April, 2013, 11:43:55 am »

Apparently he's sold his Austin estate.

$3.1 million!

marcusjb · « **Reply #1638 on:** 13 April, 2013, 11:47:31 am »

^^^

I thought he'd would have at least had it resprayed in yellow (though sh*t brown might be more appropriate for him).

Nuncio · « **Reply #1639 on:** 16 April, 2013, 09:32:16 pm »

How Lance ruined everything for David O'Doherty. Includes new revelations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=snLWkqWLY1g#!

Andrew · « **Reply #1640 on:** 17 April, 2013, 09:40:27 am »

I read he's bought a new place, in an "exclusive sub-division" of Austin's suburbs. Valued at $4.3M - so he's not downsizing. The report didn't say whose name it's in though

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/cycling/206426-lance-armstrong-buys-another-texas-home

Biff · « **Reply #1641 on:** 18 April, 2013, 02:03:43 pm »

Quote from: Andrew on 17 April, 2013, 09:40:27 am

The report didn't say whose name it's in though

The Hamilton Landis Foundation?

woollypigs · « **Reply #1642 on:** 24 April, 2013, 07:59:05 am »

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-sued-us-government

So will they have a leg to stand on?

Andrew · « **Reply #1643 on:** 24 April, 2013, 08:46:04 am »

Quote from: woollypigs on 24 April, 2013, 07:59:05 am

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-sued-us-government

So will they have a leg to stand on?

The US Govt I presume you mean.

It's an interesting one (at least it is for me!) since I've read a few pieces on this now and there doesn't seem to be agreement on an important point. That is, whether it is necessary that the USPS show they have incurred financial loss as a result of Armstrong/Tailwind's actions. Some reports say yes, some say not. I can see an argument for both... yes it was fraud but there was no consequential financial loss associated. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

woollypigs · « **Reply #1644 on:** 24 April, 2013, 08:52:21 am »

I agree with you there. I wonder if they can go after it saying that they lost face and damage to their image. I'm sure we are in for many month of fun.

citoyen · « **Reply #1645 on:** 26 April, 2013, 08:24:30 am »

Kaboom!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tygart-says-armstrong-has-evidence-of-uci-complicity

Biff · « **Reply #1646 on:** 26 April, 2013, 10:59:59 am »

Needless to say, UCI cry 'Bollocks'
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-hit-back-at-accusations-of-complicity-in-armstrongs-doping

Trouble is, without proof Tygart is pissing in the wind. I believe him though.

citoyen · « **Reply #1647 on:** 26 April, 2013, 11:05:36 am »

I totally believe him. The only question is, can he persuade Lance to provide the proof he requires? I think he can.

I mean, it's not that long since the idea of Lance making any kind of confession seemed beyond plausibility, so I think he'll definitely fess up eventually. It's a case of when, not if.

Hot Flatus · « **Reply #1648 on:** 26 April, 2013, 12:09:01 pm »

Lance will not implicate himself in corruption unless it serves his purpose.

He is not interested in doing the right thing.

Andrew · « **Reply #1649 on:** 26 April, 2013, 12:31:14 pm »

Quote from: Flatus the Almighty on 26 April, 2013, 12:09:01 pm

He is not interested in doing the right thing.

No he's not is he. Not in the slightest. I'm not even sure he knows what the 'right thing' is.