UKC

Might admit guilt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-said-to-we...

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

To my mind, he's guilty as charged; no admission required.

Nice to see that he gets pretty much universally panned in the comments section to that article.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

I'm not usually in favour of a public execution at the hands of the media; but in this guy's case I'll happily make an exception!!!

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Non-story

In reply to bouldery bits:

Really ? I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. I!m guessing that Bruyneel's decision to go for a hearing means that he has little to gain by keeping his silence.

The big question is what will he say about the UCI ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

In a way this will be interesting as didn't he testify under oath that he hadn't doped? If he does admit it then it may be that perjury is a potentially worse crime. I don't know if there's a statute of limitations that applies to perjury in the USA so it may not be pertinent.

The UCI aren't going to come out of this smelling of roses whatever Armstrong does or doesn't say.

ALC

In reply to Chris the Tall:


HI Chris,

what I mean is 'sources close to Armstrong suggest...' It's unfounded nonsense with little to no factual basis.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Perjury is indeed pertinent in the USA. Marion Jones was sentenced to six months porridge when she admitted that she had lied before a grand jury investigating performance-enhancing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones

In reply to bouldery bits:


Knowing the NYT's editorial policies, I suspect it's not. Whether Armstrong's friends are correct or not is a different matter, but I'm sure the NYT know they are close to him and have reason to trust their evaluation.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Exactly. He's the only person that could lift the lid on what the UCI's involvement, if any, was in all of this.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

since LA is largely only bothered about self-interest, I cannot see whats in it for him by confessing?

All this business about returning to competition is surely nonsense, particularly in triathlon?
Could he return and beat the Brownlees at 45 years of age? I think not, personally.
If he does confess then I think it may be more about political office or some other ambition, but not sporting.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Good analysis by Matt Seaton in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/05/lance-armstrong-ready-conf...

In reply to ClimberEd:

But this better captures what many feel:

www.podiumcafe.com/2013/1/5/3840176/will-he-wont-he-do-we-care

In reply to fxceltic:

Maybe he fancies filling Travis Tygart's boots at USADA?

In reply to bouldery bits: Still non-story?