# NYTimes Reports LA May Confess



## NYCyclist (Mar 22, 2002)

Getting to the point where I say "who cares?", but interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/s...ong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?hp


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I posted about this in the dopey dope forum a couple of months ago. 

I was surprised that the overwhelming majority did not think this would EVER happen.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Given that he lost all his TdF titles, what's the point in a confession?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Maybe under the right conditions.
-Immunity, possibly in exchange for ratting out others
-Tell all book deal worth big bucks
-Restoration of some of his palmares
-Being allowed to compete again
-Staged admission that makes him look like a victim
He won't do it just to be nice. Only if he gets something out of it.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Given that he lost all his TdF titles, what's the point in a confession?


The articles says he would try to bargain to be allowed to compete in triathlons and running events again if he confessed.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

I think for the most part the public is forgiving when stars confess. I think especially for the general public, outside of cycling Armstrong represents the athlete who beat cancer and inspires others. 

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he resumes superstar status in a very short time.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

The local ABC affiliate did a breaking news story this evening. They didn't seem to have anymore than speculation. It is alleged, as Nate points out, that some deal may be in the works. A confession for the ability to do events and/or triathlons.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

NYCyclist said:


> Getting to the point where I say "who cares?", but interesting:


agree, just keep flushing till the turd finally sinks.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

If he confesses he'd better be ready for the perjury charges.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Raceradio's twitter indicates this is potentially an attempt at mitigating the next 60 minutes program. Interesting.
Where are you, Falsetti ?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Armstrong: Yeah, OK, I doped. My people need me. Now can I race again?


Tygart: Say 'pretty please'.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

nate said:


> The articles says he would try to bargain to be allowed to compete in triathlons and running events again if he confessed.


Not much of a bargaining chip.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Given all the legal complications - SCA, the Times lawsuits - he could see a lot if financial impact. Given the allegations against him - moving drugs from country to country, distributing drugs, etc... There could be criminal implications. Given the allegations against the UCI - payments, private meetings - more criminal implications. 

If I were the USADA the only confession I would be interested in would be one that clarified the role of the UCI (if any)in all of this. 

Otherwise, a confession crafted by lawyers, where he admits the minimum but negotiates immunity from various authorities - not terribly meaningful.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> Where are you, Falsetti ?


I am here

Certainly next weeks 60 Minutes Sport launch is part of the timing. 

He has been bragging to friends that he will "Have the last word". Revenge on the haters is always part Armstrong motivation. Tossing people like JV under the bus. 

The primary motivation is he needs to make a living. He cannot do this without the cancer groupies and Tri geeks. This is an effort to get back into those arenas

Cyclist Lance Armstrong considering public confession to drug use, hoping it will convince anti-doping officials to ease lifetime ban - NY Daily News



> “Will he compensate (Tour de France champion) Greg LeMond for ruining his bicycle business? Will he apologize to Emma (O’Reilly, Armstrong’s former masseuse) for calling her a prostitute? Forgiving doesn’t mean being a doormat. Being a Christian doesn’t mean allowing people to profit from their crimes.”





> Andreu also wonders if Armstrong’s confession would include an explanation of the role he and his attorneys played in the decision by Andre Birotte, the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, to abruptly end a two-year investigation into the cyclist





> “If people give this guy another chance,” Andreu said, “then people are dumb.”


Do not discount the fact that Lance will soon have to testify under oath to the Feds in the Qui Tam case, and that case is no longer sealed. This is a preemptive attempt to get the maximum out of that confession


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

You guys all buy this confession. He never doped - he was never caught, and the evidence is all hearsay.

He is doing this simply to be eligible for certain events in the future. He figures if he is going to suffer all the penalties and none of the perks of doping, he might as well say what everyone believes, then go ride some more.

Y'all will believe anything.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

IMO LA just sunk to a new low.. if that is possible. I about choked on my dinner when I heard this report! 

He had the chance like all the others to confess, but NO he thought he would just turn a blind eye at a Grand Jury, the USDA and claim he was a victom of a witch hunt.. 

And now after he has lost all of his sponsors, banned for life, lost most of the public support, left his foundation reeling and made countless list for the 'most stupid or biggest cheat ever.... And NOW he wants to confess so he can compete.. WHAT A SNAKE... He has no morals, it is just about him, sick.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

This really reads like a good crime novel. 

A few years ago, I never expected to see the day were Armstrong would actually CONFESS to anything. He must be hurting really bad. 
But yeah, it sucks for all the people who got cheated through him. They got denied their right to get the truth out there when he refused to go through with the USADA process and now I'm assuming he's going to control as much of it as possible to deny them closure again.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Other than bringing down Vebruggen and McQuaid if it turns out his donations were really bribes to cover up his positive tests, I have a hard time imagining what LA has to bargain with. Given what he has been found guilty of, even if he brings down the UCI, I still can't see less than a two year ban, which for him will be an eternity.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

*moskowe* Agreed. IMO, LA doesn't deserve any sort of second chance. However, it would be interesting to see who he implicates in his confessions.

edit. or as *Addict07* said!


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

:thumbsup:Tygart: F*ck off Lance, tell us something we don't know.

As someone mentioned above, LA will be under oath in the Qui Tam. At this point, it's damage control. I wouldn't give as much credit to Lance and his personality at this point for having such a strong agenda to do XYZ in the future, or to affect the outcome.

IMO, at this point, Lance is being told what to say, and when to say it. It's again damage control and survival to a certain extent. His legal team are calling the shots far more than Lance Armstrong is at this point. :thumbsup:


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Prosecutors rarely, if ever, grant immunity from perjury charges, as it's a crime against the integrity of the justice system itself. And it's not Tygart's prerogative to do that.

Even if the DOJ goes along with any such deal, there's still the need to get the State of Texas on board. He could face prosecution for perjury there, depending on the applicable statute of limitations.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Given that he lost all his TdF titles, what's the point in a confession?


Explaining how he 'won' them in the first place?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Explaining how he 'won' them in the first place?


Again, what's the point?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

cmdrpiffle said:


> :thumbsup:Tygart: F*ck off Lance, tell us something we don't know.


My preferred response from Tygart.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Again, what's the point?


You go to great lengths trying to convince us you don't care. It's not working for you, is it?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> You go to great lengths trying to convince us you don't care. It's not working for you, is it?


I apologize for not taking things personally. Please don't neg rep me.

Seriously. I just don't see why we need a signed confession at this point. He has no TdF titles and can't race any more. Barring hiring a hitman, I just don't see any reasons to push things. Y'all got what ya want.


----------



## husonfirst (Jul 15, 2006)

Who cares, at this point. He's no longer relevant in pro cycling. I'd still be surprised if he does confess because he's been such a vindictive bully, going after anyone who dared to speak the truth about him.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

This NYT article is just a soft-confession by the LA legal teams. They've already made up their mind, nothing is being mulled over. This is just a tactic to soften the blow. JV did it when the news was coming out about his riders. Remember the twitter messages and the interview. This whole thing is damage control.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

CabDoctor said:


> This NYT article is just a soft-confession by the LA legal teams


Agreed. 
LA and his team are intentionally leaking and observing the reactions, reading the comments under the stories, etc.
If they keep on leaking bit by bit, eventually everyone will get used to the idea that he is confessing. Then when he does officially confess, it will be no big deal.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

Watch them spin this into a "We cleaned up the sport" statement five years from now. I'm calling it right now!


----------



## oily666 (Apr 7, 2007)

Not a bad call. Fessin' up just to race doesn't hold water IMO as it would mean admitting the doping offense(s), drug trafficking, and perjury. It would also mean forfeiture of any endorsement and sponsorship money he made. Right now, anyone correct me if I'm wrong, LA has only been "convicted" on the testimony of others and not tangible evidence. And wasn't that a panel of arbiters and not a jury? 

I don't see any way LA gains by confessing unless he's stashed money where it can't be touched. Could his legal team have cut a deal to get him off on the perjury issue?

Knowing what we know about how LA plays the game, if he does out himself, someone is going down harder than he ever will.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

sir duke said:


> My preferred response from Tygart.


My preferred response would be to see Tygart employ one of LA's tactics back at him, namely, using the press for what should be a private discussion: 

"Today Lance Armstrong's legal team approached USADA seeking to publicly confess to the doping violations he stands guilty of. While Mr. Armstrong is always free to exercise his first ammendment rights, the plea bargain window is now closed. Instead of assisting our investigation, he actively opposed it by encouraging teammates not to cooperate, he ridiculed this agency and myself in the press, his foundation attempted to use political influence to threaten the agency, and he showed absolutely no remorse by continuing to thumb his nose at the reasoned decision with his comments and photos on Twitter. We stand ready to assist law enforcement, the IRS, DEA, or any of the many plaintiffs who have or are contemplating actions against Lance Armstrong."


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

My first reaction?


----------



## hummina shadeeba (Oct 15, 2009)

no info was given on any news sites as to where they heard this possibility of a possible confession. I'm surprised the news reports don't tell that lances lawyers told them this- they aren't supposed to be be breaking us in but telling us news.

I think he's telling to mitigate his loses somehow. He's so deep in the doo at this point and no court in the land would ever think him innocent of anything and all he can do is confess for a lesser sentence. As far as his supposed reasoning, for his supposed future supposed confession, that he's trying to compete and wants his ban lifted?!..I think he has much bigger things to worry about than racing anymore. Or he's an obsessed maniac in denial of his crumbling world.
He needs to spin it well. I've been trying to tell him. His single mother just trying to get buy in this tough america story is valid to me. People will do a lot for their family in a society that will step over you or step on you for a safe dollar.


----------



## NJRoadie (May 13, 2004)

I wonder if the timing has something to do with the Bruyneel case. Armstrong could be forced to testify in that hearing. He could perjure himself if he says that he did not dope, or contradict sworn testimony from the prize money arbitration is he admits to doping. That's a lose/lose there.


----------



## hummina shadeeba (Oct 15, 2009)

when is the bruyneel case going to happen? i feel like lots of stuff is happening behind doors and slowing stuff down. He was supposed to have his day last year. And his tweets made for a lot of fireworks to come when that day finally arrives


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Addict07 said:


> My preferred response would be to see Tygart employ one of LA's tactics back at him, namely, using the press for what should be a private discussion:
> 
> "Today Lance Armstrong's legal team approached USADA seeking to publicly confess to the doping violations he stands guilty of. While Mr. Armstrong is always free to exercise his first ammendment rights, the plea bargain window is now closed. Instead of assisting our investigation, he actively opposed it by encouraging teammates not to cooperate, he ridiculed this agency and myself in the press, his foundation attempted to use political influence to threaten the agency, and he showed absolutely no remorse by continuing to thumb his nose at the reasoned decision with his comments and photos on Twitter. We stand ready to assist law enforcement, the IRS, DEA, or any of the many plaintiffs who have or are contemplating actions against Lance Armstrong."


The longhand version works for me too. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.


----------



## shoegazer (Nov 2, 2007)

Addict07 said:


> My preferred response would be to see Tygart employ one of LA's tactics back at him, namely, using the press for what should be a private discussion:
> 
> "Today Lance Armstrong's legal team approached USADA seeking to publicly confess .../... We stand ready to assist law enforcement, the IRS, DEA, or any of the many plaintiffs who have or are contemplating actions against Lance Armstrong."


+1 Beautiful!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Lets just assume he confesses and is allowed to "compete" again. Does anyone here think he can excel in any event without his drugs!? Seems like every athlete in the history of man that stages a "clean return" to the sport they once dominated failed miserably.

I can see him using drugs again and actually getting in trouble AGAIN!

After decades of drug use, it is not that simple to compete clean and win. He NEEDS to win.

I must be like suddenly being hit with a headwind everywhere you ride sorta thing when you quit the PEDs.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

rydbyk said:


> Lets just assume he confesses and is allowed to "compete" again. Does anyone here think he can excel in any event without his drugs!? Seems like every athlete in the history of man that stages a "clean return" to the sport they once dominated failed miserably.
> 
> I can see him using drugs again and actually getting in trouble AGAIN!
> 
> ...


I agree, however two things work in his favor: from what my tri buddies tell me, PED use is rampant in those events and last time I checked, nobody had ever tested positive, indicating that perhaps the testing isn't as extensive as with pro cycling...which as we have seen, is barely a deterrent to begin with.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Addict07 said:


> I agree, however two things work in his favor: from what my tri buddies tell me, PED use is rampant in those events and last time I checked, nobody had ever tested positive, indicating that perhaps the testing isn't as extensive as with pro cycling...which as we have seen, is barely a deterrent to begin with.


It'll probably get more extensive if LA is allowed in.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Look people, even if nobody ever doped the playing field would still be uneven. I mean come on, it isn’t fair that some are born with better abilities (sometimes referred to as God given abilities) while others are born with less. 

What we should do is test everyone who is ever born and establish baselines. Then, if that person decides to compete, they should be bunched into a category according to their God given ability. That way it’ll mainly be training and sheer determination that will distinguish them. And we can then measure people like LA vs people like me (who have very low God given ability) according to our placing in our respective waves.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

BostonG said:


> Look people, even if nobody ever doped the playing field would still be uneven. I mean come on, it isn’t fair that some are born with better abilities (sometimes referred to as God given abilities) while others are born with less.
> 
> What we should do is test everyone who is ever born and establish baselines. Then, if that person decides to compete, they should be bunched into a category according to their God given ability. That way it’ll mainly be training and sheer determination that will distinguish them. And we can then measure people like LA vs people like me (who have very low God given ability) according to our placing in our respective waves.


EPO often works best on those elite athletes who have LESS natural talent. 

An athlete with a natural hematocrit of 44 and has a system that works efficiently will see HUGE gains compared to his team mate who may have a natural hematocrite of 48 sorta thing... 

See...in the pro peleton, the 44 and 48 may be pretty darn close in talent. You move the 44 to a 49 hematocrit with EPO and he will then destroy the rider who was moved from a 48 to a 49 hematocrit. The percent gain is MUCH larger in the 44 to 49 hematocrit shift.

This is well documented. The rider with the 44 using the same EPO regimen as the guy with 48 will go one to crush them and end up as the "guy to beat"...well..usually at least.

Weird eh?

Personally, I have a MUCH easier time accepting someone with "natural" talent dominating in a clean field vs. seeing someone who is less naturally gifted who simply reacts to drugs in a huge way and then goes on dominating.

The playing field is NOT leveled when every racer is taking EPO. Not in any way..


----------



## misterwaterfallin (Sep 14, 2012)

NJRoadie said:


> I wonder if the timing has something to do with the Bruyneel case. Armstrong could be forced to testify in that hearing. He could perjure himself if he says that he did not dope, or contradict sworn testimony from the prize money arbitration is he admits to doping. That's a lose/lose there.


He can plead the fifth in that case can't he?


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> EPO often works best on those elite athletes who have LESS natural talent.
> 
> An athlete with a natural hematocrit of 44 and has a system that works efficiently will see HUGE gains compared to his team mate who may have a natural hematocrite of 48 sorta thing...
> 
> ...


No, I didn’t know that EPO worked that way so it’s a good lesson. And makes me want to use ‘cause I’d jump so far according to that. 

My post of course was satire, I was joking when I said we should test people at birth for perspective on the talent they were born with and then categorize them if/when they compete against like people. You likely knew that but…

I did know that people respond differently to EPO, and that some methods are better than others and all that jazz. I’m sure LA had some pretty top notch people helping him with his personalized EPO plan. Errr, excuse me, I mean alleged personalized EPO plan.

My joke post however was the opposite of taking EPO - more that it would simply be that nobody would take any illegal substance (yes, it would just be), and although that was taken out of the equation we would have different capabilities that are not due to training or nutrition and because of that, it still makes things unfair. So perhaps we need to establish an association to deal with not only EPO detection, but God given talent detection (but not use the word God because it may offend some athletes) to level the playing field even more. 

I mean is it really fair that someone like me should compete against someone who was born into better genetics? I can train harder and eat smarter but they can still win. Preposterous! I want to compete against people who were born with similar genetic capabilities…then we’ll see who’s the strongest, without using the illegal advantage of the better genetics they were lucky enough to have been born into. 

Yes, it’s a joke but it makes some sense no? Drugs give unfair advantage, genetics give unfair advantage…where does it stop? How about controlling the things we eat to level the playing field even more. I don’t know, I’m kinda feeling like it should be all or nothing one way or the other, otherwise there are too many factors to control.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Boston..yeh, I think we are sorta on the same page here. Interesting topic of discussion at the very least.

I guess the category system is the closest thing to allowing you to compete against fellow non-gifted racers...but...still not a perfect system..haha


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

misterwaterfallin said:


> He can plead the fifth in that case can't he?


It would depend on whether a truthful answer would subject him to the possibility of criminal prosecution. If both the federal and Texas statutes of limitations for perjury have expired, he couldn't be prosecuted for perjury if he admitted PED use, even though he denied doing so under oath in the SCA deposition.

Also, the Bruyneel case is an administrative arbitration hearing, so there may be no legal ramifications if he just tells USADA to shove it and refuses to answer. He's already on a lifetime ban. Unless they have the ability to have him held in contempt for refusing to answer, they can't force him to.

In a civil trial, as the defendant, he can face either a contempt citation, or entry of judgment against him by default, if he can't assert a valid 5th amendment privilege. OJ had to testify in his civil trial, because he was acquitted of the murder and no longer had a 5th.


----------

