# 60 minutes takes aim at Armstrong



## Appendage (Dec 28, 2006)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...-unfair-doping-allegations/?cid=hp:mainpromo4


----------



## slipstream8 (Feb 24, 2011)

Armstrong is in denial and will end up right where Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and the rest of the dopers are--an asterisk in the history books. At this point I think his lawyers have tried to smear every cyclist who ever rode with Lance.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

With no smoking gun (yet, if ever), it just comes down to a particularly nasty game of "he said, he said". It's a credibility demolition-derby, Lance knows that, and he's assembled a very strong team of lawyers and PR ppl to help him win said mud-wrasslin' match.

That doesn't mean he's not guilty... just smart, and wealthy. As with so many other athletes, my jaw will certainly not hit the table if it ever comes out for certain that he was doping.

But, it'll probably be years before anything conclusive ever comes out either way. I highly doubt the_ 60 Minutes_ piece will be the last word.

Surprisingly, I don't care all that much. I always found Lance to be really, really dull, even at the height of his career. It's a lot like how I felt about Tiger Woods... you have this guy who's at the top of his sport, who says all the right things, who has this well-polished public image... but you get the vibe that it's all kind of phony/calculated, so you don't engage.

With Tiger, my gut ended up being right. With Lance, remains to be be seen, but I know which way I'd bet if I had to put money on it. 
.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Off to the doping forum with this thread!


----------



## Sebastionmerckx (Mar 6, 2008)

I've generally never liked Armstrong much but I really love what he's done with Livestrong. Regardless of what happens, I just hope Livestrong doesn't suffer as a result of all this.


----------



## eddie m (Jul 6, 2002)

I think Lance is in more trouble than most people realize. 
If there are credible charges that go back to his Postal days, that's bad for him. In most cases, doping would only be a violation of UCI rules, and maybe of the commercial terms of a sponsorship contract. Violation of the terms of a USPS contract is actually a crime. If prosecutors try to use that as leverage, they'll all start talking.

em


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

eddie m said:


> they'll all start talking.


Seems like every indication so far is that they all are talking already. Presumably because they don't want to go down on perjury charges.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I believe Lance doped, and Tyler is probably telling the truth (finally). But watching Tyler in that clip, I find him less than credible. I mean, the reason he is talking to 60 minutes is to be interviewed about this stuff. Unless he is the dumbest person ever, he knows what the big question is going to be. And yet, when they ask it, he pauses like he has to think about it. What's to think about? Jeeze, if the answer is "yes," just say "Yes." Then he stammers out a half-hearted "but everybody was doing it." It's a little creepy to watch.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> I believe Lance doped, and Tyler is probably telling the truth (finally). But watching Tyler in that clip, I find him less than credible. I mean, the reason he is talking to 60 minutes is to be interviewed about this stuff. Unless he is the dumbest person ever, he knows what the big question is going to be. And yet, when they ask it, he pauses like he has to think about it. What's to think about? Jeeze, if the answer is "yes," just say "Yes." Then he stammers out a half-hearted "but everybody was doing it." It's a little creepy to watch.


That is how Tyler talks. You ask him what kind of ice cream he likes and he would give you the same response.


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

Look I like what Lance did for the sport in the U.S., I like what he has done with Livestrong. Whether he was doping or not he did what he did on an equal playing field. Some got caught and some did not. They were all doing it just some better than others. You all can whine that some were clean but we should all know better than that. Lance is just one of those guys you love to hate because so many people put him on a pedestal. And lets face it there is only one thing America likes better than a hero, it is to see a hero fall from grace!


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Personally I don't find looting a charity to be an admirable trait, even when it's done with some restraint and accounting legerdemain.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rward325 said:


> Look I like what Lance did for the sport in the U.S., I like what he has done with Livestrong. Whether he was doping or not he did what he did on an equal playing field. Some got caught and some did not. They were all doing it just some better than others. You all can whine that some were clean but we should all know better than that. Lance is just one of those guys you love to hate because so many people put him on a pedestal. And lets face it there is only one thing America likes better than a hero, it is to see a hero fall from grace!


Really? 

Did they all pay off the UCI? Did they all get advanced notice of surprise testing?


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really?
> 
> Did they all pay off the UCI? Did they all get advanced notice of surprise testing?


Do you honestly believe they were not all dirty back then Doc? If you do I have some land in Florida for sale!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

rward325 said:


> Do you honestly believe they were not all dirty back then Doc? If you do I have some land in Florida for sale!


That wasn't the question.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rward325 said:


> Do you honestly believe they were not all dirty back then Doc? If you do I have some land in Florida for sale!


You may want to actually read what I wrote. 

Many doped but it was far from a "Level Playing field" Not all riders payed off the UCI, got advanced notice of surprise testing or had access to experimental drugs.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11579

It's long, but Armstrong shakes the collecting tin an awful lot...


----------



## jarbiker (Sep 29, 2009)

If Armstrong was doping, then please, someone on this forum, explain how or why he has never tested positive. Does anyone actually think his trainers or doctors were smarter than all of the other people out there. That is really hard to believe.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

jarbiker said:


> If Armstrong was doping, then please, someone on this forum, explain how or why he has never tested positive. Does anyone actually think his trainers or doctors were smarter than all of the other people out there. That is really hard to believe.


This has been discussed *many* times. Feel free to use the search box. Here are some of the recent discussions.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=244615
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jarbiker said:


> If Armstrong was doping, then please, someone on this forum, explain how or why he has never tested positive. Does anyone actually think his trainers or doctors were smarter than all of the other people out there. That is really hard to believe.


You mean like the dozens if of cyclists that were caught in Operation Puerto and never tested positive or the dozens who have come clean about doping during their careers yet never tested positive?

Simple fact is testing pre-Operation Puerto was a joke. Since then there's been a reasonable chance though far from a certainty that if you doped you would be caught.

I'd be surprised if there aren't still some guys riding who have been doping more or less during this whole transition and still have yet to be caught (e.g. Contador & Menchov).


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

hampsten88 said:


> I have seen it and it involved zero proof and a lot of speculation much of it uninformed speculation posted by obsessed individuals.


You've seen it? Great! Maybe you could post some comments to add to the discussion. That would be great!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jarbiker said:


> If Armstrong was doping, then please, someone on this forum, explain how or why he has never tested positive. Does anyone actually think his trainers or doctors were smarter than all of the other people out there. That is really hard to believe.


Lance has tested positive multiple times, he has never been sanctioned. 

He tested positive for EPO 6 times 
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

He tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone multiple times
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/index.htm

He tested positive for Cortisone at the 1999 Tour. 

"Never tested positive" means little if he was paying off the UCI, something he has told multiple people. It also means nothing if he was getting advanced notice of surprise testing, something that multiple teammates have claimed. It also means nothing when you understand how far the tests are behind the dopers. Marion Jones, Basso, Scarponi, Valverde and many others Never tested positive. They are all dopers


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance has tested positive multiple times, he has never been sanctioned.
> 
> He tested positive for EPO 6 times
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> ...


So they bust Popo with all the stuff SI is claiming and yet he is still riding in the Giro. How does that work? I'm sure RS has some anti doping clauses which he would have violated with all of the crap they claim was found. What gives Doc.
There are a couple of big "ifs" in your statement on never tested positive. Personally I'm waiting for a jury to make the "if" calls.
Frankly I find the entire investigation insulting. Our tax dollars spent investigating pros in a sport which is a pimple on the ass of professional American sports. I don't care if LA used during his tour wins. News flash in a somewhat equal playing field he still had to ride his bike faster than the other guys right? 
If riders want to cheat they'll find someone to help them. If the any of the governing bodies really cared about doping in sports penalties would be very, very severe. Lifetime bans if caught, minimum mandatory sentences for anyone from rider, director, coach, doctor, to dealer. Period. I know I'm not saying anything new, but this doping crap is so beat, and now with all the economical issues in American today the powers that be decide this is a great way to spend some dough. Awesome. At this point they must continue the investigation as it has grown to big and they have spent to much to let it go, but it never had to start.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> So they bust Popo with all the stuff SI is claiming and yet he is still riding in the Giro. How does that work? I'm sure RS has some anti doping clauses which he would have violated with all of the crap they claim was found. What gives Doc.
> There are a couple of big "ifs" in your statement on never tested positive. Personally I'm waiting for a jury to make the "if" calls.
> Frankly I find the entire investigation insulting. Our tax dollars spent investigating pros in a sport which is a pimple on the ass of professional American sports. I don't care if LA used during his tour wins. News flash in a somewhat equal playing field he still had to ride his bike faster than the other guys right?
> If riders want to cheat they'll find someone to help them. If the any of the governing bodies really cared about doping in sports penalties would be very, very severe. Lifetime bans if caught, minimum mandatory sentences for anyone from rider, director, coach, doctor, to dealer. Period. I know I'm not saying anything new, but this doping crap is so beat, and now with all the economical issues in American today the powers that be decide this is a great way to spend some dough. Awesome. At this point they must continue the investigation as it has grown to big and they have spent to much to let it go, but it never had to start.


When you work with the authorities you still get to ride....hey, Levi is riding ToC. 

How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating it? Does he get a pass for all crimes or just the doping related stuff? Tax evasion, is that OK? 

There was never anything resembling a level playing field. How many riders had Hemmassit? Paid off the UCI? Got advanced notice of surprise testing? The $$$$ to pay Ferrari?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When you work with the authorities you still get to ride....hey, Levi is riding ToC.
> 
> How large does Armstrong's crime have to be for you to be OK with investigating it? Does he get a pass for all crimes or just the doping related stuff? Tax evasion, is that OK?
> 
> There was never anything resembling a level playing field. How many riders had Hemmassit? Paid off the UCI? Got advanced notice of surprise testing? The $$$$ to pay Ferrari?


Really. What did Levi get caught with lately? What about the doping clauses established by the team?
Tax evasion is a crime worth investigating, but I would rather the Feds investigate a corporation whose outsourcing jobs than a bike rider hiding $ to buy dope. Let's start with the doping crime LA is actually being investigated for before you start throwing around hall passes on all crimes. ehh. 
From info I've read Hemmassit is so awesome it is not available in NA, or Europe. However it was available in Russia and S. Africa so it seems LA was not the only rider who was able to get his hands on it. Look at the guys on the podiums with LA they all had the means to dope just as effectively as LA. Do you have the evidence showing LA paid off the UCI to get advance notice of tests? I've heard about the alleged payoffs to cover up the positive test from ToS, but nothing on buying advance warnings for testing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Really. What did Levi get caught with lately? What about the doping clauses established by the team?
> Tax evasion is a crime worth investigating, but I would rather the Feds investigate a corporation whose outsourcing jobs than a bike rider hiding $ to buy dope. Let's start with the doping crime LA is actually being investigated for before you start throwing around hall passes on all crimes. ehh.
> From info I've read Hemmassit is so awesome it is not available in NA, or Europe. However it was available in Russia and S. Africa so it seems LA was not the only rider who was able to get his hands on it. Look at the guys on the podiums with LA they all had the means to dope just as effectively as LA. Do you have the evidence showing LA paid off the UCI to get advance notice of tests? I've heard about the alleged payoffs to cover up the positive test from ToS, but nothing on buying advance warnings for testing.


You do realize that the IRS is investigating him right? You realize that Landis and Manzano both talked about advanced notice of testing from Walter Viru....who was arrested last year?

You may want to save this stuff for a while. George, Landis, Tyler....tip of the iceburg.


----------



## jarbiker (Sep 29, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> This has been discussed *many* times. Feel free to use the search box. Here are some of the recent discussions.
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=244615
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


hey thanks for the tip. Now lets just put it on the table - I don't really care if Lance used or not, from what I've seen all of these top riders cheat. It's pretty much an even playing field and Lance still won 7 Tours. As badly as the French want to get Lance and it seems everyone else, then I still believe that if there was any credible evidence that he did dope it would have already been out there. How reliable are 6 "B" samples that are 5 or 6 years old, who knows how they were stored, etc. If there is proof then show it.


----------



## usernametaken (Jul 26, 2010)

Link to full video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366948n


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Even if you accept that all riders cheat and Lance just did what everyone else was doing, the degree of vitriol and personal character malignment that Lance resorted to when confronted is simply reprehensible if he was guilty of what the people accused him of. I would think these individuals would have cause to sue him in civil court for damages.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

I thought 60 minutes was very interesting.... 

Making a positive test go away in the Tour de Switzerland, backed up by the head of the lab and then "donations" to the UCI.... Yes this goes far beyond 'just doping"


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

jarbiker said:


> hey thanks for the tip. Now lets just put it on the table - I don't really care if Lance used or not, from what I've seen all of these top riders cheat. It's pretty much an even playing field and Lance still won 7 Tours. As badly as the French want to get Lance and it seems everyone else, then I still believe that if there was any credible evidence that he did dope it would have already been out there. How reliable are 6 "B" samples that are 5 or 6 years old, who knows how they were stored, etc. If there is proof then show it.


If it makes you feel good to say that in the anonymous backwater of a web forum, good for you, but that's nothing like what Armstrong can say for himself. He's staked his empire on his absolute innocence, and it's going to tumble down when he can no longer deny doping without everyone laughing in his face.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Gaear Grimsrud said:


> He's staked his empire on his absolute innocence, and it's going to tumble down when he can no longer deny doping without everyone laughing in his face.


You say this as if he's unique.

Floyd Fairness Fund anyone? They ALL do it. Kinda like how almost anyone accused with a crime (regardless of the evidence against them) claims they are innocent.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

usernametaken said:


> Link to full video:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366948n


Thanks for the link. I had to laugh out loud when I saw the story sponsored by ******.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

Marc said:


> You say this as if he's unique.
> 
> Floyd Fairness Fund anyone? They ALL do it. Kinda like how almost anyone accused with a crime (regardless of the evidence against them) claims they are innocent.


The thing that's unique about Armstrong is the extent of his empire and how much power he brings to bear on enemies.

Landis, Hamilton, etc., didn't have something like Livestrong and a personal myth to protect. "If it is true, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sport; if it is not, it is the greatest fraud."


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

pedalruns said:


> I thought 60 minutes was very interesting....
> 
> Making a positive test go away in the Tour de Switzerland, backed up by the head of the lab and then "donations" to the UCI.... Yes this goes far beyond 'just doping"


I don't know of too many people in the peloton who have that kind of juice (pardon my pun) !


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

95zpro said:


> I don't know of too many people in the peloton who have that kind of juice (pardon my pun) !


It emphasizes how important it was to the UCI to make everyone forget the Festina scandal and focus on the Armstrong fairy tale.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

jarbiker said:


> It's pretty much an even playing field and Lance still won 7 Tours.


First off, I don't buy into the even playing field argument. However, let's just assume everyone dopes. Could it be possible that Lance's body reacts to dope more effectively than another racer's body reacts to dope? That is, you have two riders both on dope and then both not on dope. One is better on dope when they are both doping. The other is better off dope when they are both not doping. Is this possible?


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Odd that in the interview, Hamilton cited his "love" for the sport and his concern for its well being as the reason for both denying drug use on the US Postal team in the past, and admitting to it now.

Do I think Armstrong doped... probably. Until there's proof beyond somebody else's account, though, it still feels a bit like: "I saw Goody Armstrong consorting with the Devil".


----------

