Plan B Forum

Lance Armstrong may admit he used banned drugs - NY Times

REUTERS - Lance Armstrong, the disgraced American cyclist at the center of the biggest doping scandal in the sport's history, may admit he used performance-enhancing drugs during his career, the New York Times reported in Saturday's editions, citing "several people with direct knowledge of the situation."

The newspaper said Armstrong, 41, has told associates and anti-doping officials he may make the admission in hopes of persuading anti-doping officials to allow him to resume competition in athletic events that adhere to the World Anti-Doping Code, under which Armstrong is currently subject to a lifetime ban.

Such an admission would be a stunning reversal for Armstrong, who has vehemently denied doping for years.

Asked if an admission was coming from Armstrong, Tim Herman, the cyclist's longtime lawyer, told the Times, "Lance has to speak for himself on that."

The newspaper, citing "one person briefed on the situation," said Armstrong has been in discussions with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and met with Travis Tygart, the agency's chief executive.

The paper, citing the same source, said Armstrong is also seeking to meet with David Howman, the director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Armstrong's lawyer denied his client had talked with Tygart.

An October 10 report from the USADA blasted Armstrong's involvement in what it characterized as the "most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Less than two weeks later, Armstrong's seven Tour de France victories were nullified and he was banned from cycling for life after the International Cycling Union ratified the USADA's sanctions against him.

http://news.yahoo.com/lance-armstrong-m ... --spt.html

This is a little confusing, but based on the parts I highlighted, it seems to me that the report based on "several sources" (which isn't denied by his attorney) that Armstrong is considering a confession on doping is likely true, but that the report based on "a single source" (which Armstrong's attorney denies) that Armstrong has already met with the head of the USADA about this likely not accurate.

From the very beginning of this controversy, I've been in a position to be objective about this, because I really have no dog in this fight, and no axe to grind...(Or is it no axe in this fight and no dog to grind...) Pro cycling is not a sport that I've ever had any great interest in. To the extent I had any impression of Armstrong at all it was always a positive one, (overcoming cancer, all the good work he did for sick kids, etc.)

And despite the fact that the more I've learned about this, (including the fact that doping appears to have been pandemic on the pro cycling circuit) and the worse it seemed to look for Armstrong, I've still never felt that the evidence against him was conclusive. (Even though given all the factors, common sense might tell one that it was more likely than not that he had engaged in doping.)

However, all of that having been said, I have to say that if "sources close to the situation" (ie, presumably friends of Armstrong) are leaking to The New York Times that he is considering a confession, it looks to me like a man floating a "trial balloon" in the press to see whether it would be to his professional and PR advantage to confess...

And if he decides that a confession won't be helpful to him, based on the reaction of the public and the cycling and doping organizations, he can still not confess and maintain his innocence. He can just deny the reports from the anonymous sources...

Only a guilty man plays a game like this. An innocent man isn't going to float a trial balloon about confessing. (Afterall, he's not facing any criminal charges.)

If Armstrong has any integrity and character at all, and he is in fact guilty, he should simply come forward and admit it, and let the chips fall where they may. He should make the admission, and offer apologies because he is conscience stricken over what he did, and all the people he let down and disappointed.

Not in exchange for cutting some sort of "deal".

It seems odd to me that Armstrong would want to compete again. I don't follow the sport but isn't age 41 a bit old for cycling competition? How likely is it that he would be able to win or even come close to it at his age without the aid of steroids?

If he wants to finally admit what most people already believe, that's a good thing I suppose, but I don't see anything positive in it for him at this point.

Tri-athlons, Joe. He wants to continue his charity events. He can't at the moment because he's banned from competitions that are subject to the WADC

I see. In order for Lance to hold charity events he will need to stop lying about his steroid use.

Raymond Poulidor was winning races until 41.

I glad to hear that Lance is going to do the right thing. It will be better for him, for cycling, and for sports overall.



yrs,
rubato

Bah.

Any predictions on how long it takes the public to forget and forgive after the confession to Oprah?

As to Lance's ability to compete effectively in triathlons -- I think his desire to compete at the highest levels was part of the reason USADA pursued its investigation. PEDs or no, Armstrong is a tremendous talent and even at 41 was a serious threat to place high in the Ironman. He was a very good runner before he took up triathlons in his late teens, and from there he developed into a world class cyclist; so, he is a better runner than nearly all the elite triathletes and of course he is a superior bike rider to all of them. The swim is the least important of the three disciplines on the basis of how long it takes, so if he is merely competent at it, he would be hard to beat.

Long Run wrote:Any predictions on how long it takes the public to forget and forgive after the confession to Oprah?

The celeb equivalent of the Catholics confessional, all sins are over once confessed. Maybe he'll have to say 10 "Hail Oprah, full of face, blessed are you and your yo yo diets."

Guin's got the Suede why would she care about Armstrong...

I think its a "Swede" shes got ... unless she's into leather.

yrs,
rubato

Check the origin of the word my friend.

I'm sure she understood...

If I were going to suddenly admit to lying about something most logical people never believed in the first place, why would I go on Oprah's show?

Probably because the large majority of her viewers are forgiving drama seekers who would love to mother poor misguided & misunderstood Lance.

After all, although he is a lying sack of shit about why he was able to accomplish his athletic acheivements while convincing others to do the same, he has also worked to help cancer victims.

He wanted to be known as a great natural athlete who has dedicated his life to helping others, but that's the big lie.

He is a substance enhanced and influential athlete who managed to help others cheat.

He needs to cut those strings & focus on how he can positively influence up & coming athletes now & in the future.

And stay out of the spotlight.

If I were going to suddenly admit to lying about something most logical people never believed in the first place, why would I go on Oprah's show?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

(zzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Oprah has now said that Lance "came clean" on her show.

She must have her own portable drug testing lab...

That or he could have made sure something readily disposable was handy

I'm really pissed and truly disappointed. I believed in him, defended him, and admired his accomplishments. I'm not even sure I'll watch Oprah, and certainly won't believe a thing he says ever again -- in tomorrow's show or thereafter. He's no better than the people he's been criticizing and complaining about all these years.

keld feldspar wrote:Check the origin of the word my friend.

I'm sure she understood...

Ha. Suede does indeed some from the french word for "swedish gloves," i.e., gants de Suede.

I'm not sure my Swede (as opposed to my suede) is all that soft and pliable -- except when I bat my eyelashes at him, then I often get him to do what I want

AUSTIN, TX—Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong kicked off a campaign to restore his image Monday by admitting in a television interview with Oprah Winfrey that he used a sophisticated cocktail of performance-enhancing drugs to evince remorse and shame. “To make the kind of heartfelt apology I am making now without the help of drugs would be impossible, and so when it came to convincing millions of people that I am a decent human being who is capable of actual regret, I needed an edge,” Armstrong reportedly says in the extensive television interview, which sources said the cyclist prepared for by injecting himself with stamina-supporting recombinant erythropoietin and methocarbamol, a muscle relaxant that helps to slacken the Depressor anguli oris, Corrugator supercilii and other facial muscles required to frown and cry. “Make no mistake, it still takes a lot of skill to do what I am doing right now. Saying sorry over and over, all the while maintaining a veneer of humility when you’re actually a self-righteous egomaniac? Drugs or no drugs, that’s impressive.” According to sources, Armstrong then looks directly into the camera with tear-filled eyes and says, “I am so, so sorry.”

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance- ... nci,30912/

except when I bat my eyelashes at him, then I often get him to do what I want

My wife uses that on me too. You evil women.

Guinevere wrote:[
I'm not sure my Swede (as opposed to my suede) is all that soft and pliable --

Surely that's not how you want him....