Lance Armstrong reportedly weighing whether to admit to doping
He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.
For more than a decade, Armstrong has vehemently denied ever doping, even after antidoping officials laid out their case against him in October in hundreds of pages of eyewitness testimony from teammates, e-mail correspondence, financial records and laboratory analyses.
When asked if Armstrong might admit to doping, Tim Herman, Armstrong’s longtime lawyer, said, “Lance has to speak for himself on that.”
Armstrong has been under pressure from various fronts to confess. Wealthy supporters of Livestrong, the charity he founded after surviving testicular cancer, have been trying to persuade him to come forward so he could clear his conscience and save the organization from further damage, one person with knowledge of the situation said.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
He should have admitted it years ago. What a dope.
Pork-Chop on January 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM
How can he “resume” his athletic career at his age and without doping? I think he is intending to “rehabilitate” himself because he is addicted to the fame and wants to make more money. But the guy is worth over a $100 million bucks. Even if he is sued, he will still be a multimillionaire.
Blake on January 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Wha…? He’s going to admit to being a liberal?
Akzed on January 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Is Erika going to attack the doping authority again for outing Lance as a CHEATER?
It’s going to be really satisfying to see Lance taken to court by all the people he sued and ruined.
lexhamfox on January 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM
He played ya.
CW on January 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM
I personally would not trust the evidence laid out. It is all people who end up having an interest in damaging lance Armstrong in order to further their careers. The reason we could not beat Lance is that he cheated! They also likely had high levels of pressure put on them to make that kind of statement.
Unless they have hard evidence, I personally will not trust that evidence.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Livejuiced
The Count on January 5, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Lance is guilty as sin, it’s a complete joke.
Literally every single person who’s worked with the guy or been a team mate, says he’s dirty
He’s only made this worse with his arrogance and anger denying the inevitable. Filing one threatening lawsuit after another to silence anyone who speaks out against him
Anyone who’s met him or crossed paths with him knows what an insufferable, arrogant ass he is
That’s why so many are relishing his comeuppance now
thurman on January 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Erika Johnsen does not approve this message.
Capitalist Hog on January 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM
That is the funny thing… How do so many people keep a secret when EVERYONE knows it and is in on it.
It is much like the truthers. The level of conspiracy required to pull off the final outcome is so extraordinarily massive that it would be impossible to keep it secret, someone would have told eventually.
Effectively the people that were fired in his past remained silent, even though they had ammunition. Those he may have said something bad about at any given moment might have spilled the beans. The list and the time frame argue against the evidence presented.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM
And OJ is innocent.
/
Capitalist Hog on January 5, 2013 at 10:14 AM
I never said he was innocent. But the cops were dirty as all get out. That was what got Simpson off. If they had been competent, honest, and done their jobs, O.J. would have been in jail long before he eventually got there through tertiary means.
That is the thing, you seriously are going to take the word of these self admitted cheaters over someone who has done so much good?
Like I said, hard evidence is required. Words are just that.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM
I direct you to Penn State.
A hell of a lot of people knew that Sandusky was a serial child rapist. They kept it secret for a looooong time.
And I’d submit to you that raping a hundred little boys is a tad more heinous than juicing up and touring Europe in hotpants.
CorporatePiggy on January 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM
The thing that really gets me about conspiracy theorists (and Dick Morris) is how indignant you act in the face of logic followed by utter silence when you’re proved wrong.
You sound like a dream within a heroin nod. Inception Diaries
Capitalist Hog on January 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM
LOL. What’s next?
Is Barry Obama weighing whether to admit that he’s not a constitutional law expert? Is Barney Frank weighing whether to admit that he’s not a competent legislator? Is Lizzie Warren weighing whether to admit she’s not a Cherokee squaw?
AZCoyote on January 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Also Michael Jackson was really just an outgoing puppeteer.
Capitalist Hog on January 5, 2013 at 10:21 AM
How many exactly? I did not follow the story closely. I thought it was like a few people who all had a direct invested interest in keeping it silent.
Compared to Armstrong’s competition knowing. That is the thing. The people who were competing against him kept quiet? Seriously?
That is what it seems like to me.
By the way, I am not arguing there is a conspiracy. I am arguing human nature.
If lance did dope, he should admit it and move on. If he did not though, admitting it just to be able to move on is not the honorable thing to do.
Like I said, if there were hard evidence, that would be compelling. On the other hand what we have is an exceptionally vindictive group of witch hunters looking to take down an American and which side are you on? The Euroweenie Witch Hunter’s… Great job!
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Where was your evidence of proving me wrong? Please redirect me back to it, I seem to have missed it…
Oh, people’s words. People who if you believe were criminals.
Something like this would have physical evidence. Maybe you could point to me the compelling physical evidence.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Not really.
You don’t know much about the pro circuit. Literally everyone was on drugs, which is a powerful incentive to keep schtum. First one to point the finger kicks off a scandal, which is eventually what happened. Most of the cyclists copped to it, several doctors were jailed, teams were fined.
It’s similar to why there has not been a select committee to investigate all the insider trading that our legislators indulge in. Far too many of them are tainted. No one wants to expose how in many cases the simply act of lasting 20 years in Congress connects to you raising your net worth 25 times over.
CorporatePiggy on January 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM
The other thing about the drugs is that the doctors were (and still are) several steps ahead of the doping agencies. People like Armstrong got caught well after the fact – it is why they hang onto samples.
CorporatePiggy on January 5, 2013 at 10:34 AM
But that does not prove guilt on Lance.
I hear your argument. But I do not judge a person on whims. I require evidence of the wrongdoing. Is his success the evidence?
Well, since I am going down, I might as well take out my main competitor! The question at that point becomes is the accusation credible!
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM
So, is it a credible third party holding those samples? What were the results of those samples?
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:37 AM
UCI (international governing body) passed the judgement and it was that Armstrong was doping.
Some people will only be satisfied if Congress steps in and holds hearing a la Landry, but seriously – who trusts those monkeys?
CorporatePiggy on January 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM
I dunno, I would be convinced if they had chemical evidence in those blood samples.
I would also accept his admission.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Much adieu about nothing. Hell, every cyclist “dopes” him / herself. Lance Armstrong isn’t a “big thing” in Europe because Europeans are not locked up in irrelevant morality like Americans are. It’s like a politician gets caught with his mistress in the US and everyone here is like … “OMG!!”. When it happens in France it’s – “well of course”.
That’s basically the reaction Europeans have to Armstrong … “He doped heh? Well – don’t they all?”
HondaV65 on January 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Sports Illustrated did a crucifying article on Lance a couple of months ago.
Now – I’m a big fan of Lance – and I think he’s gotten a raw deal but …
The evidence – in totality – is damning. Yeah – most of it you can pick it apart and say “well, this wouldn’t stand up in a court of law if he had O.J.’s lawyers” – and that would be correct.
But taken as a whole – you cannot escape the conclusion that he doped.
And so what? Athletes should be able to “dope” as they see fit because there are now so many “banned” substances. I think caffeine is banned. I know creatine is banned and that’s harmless and only marginally increases performance anyway.
Hell, what about an olympic rifle shooter who gets lasic surgery? Doesn’t that give him an advantage?
Doping is a complicated issue – one that you can’t deal with using a set of rules unless you make those rules completely laughable – as they now are.
HondaV65 on January 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM
LIVESTRONGLIESTRONG
All you yellow wrist wearing schmoe’s were played for fools.
portlandon on January 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM
I never liked the guy personally.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Yep. Like Obama, who wore one prominently during the 2008 campaign. He of the superior “judgment.”
AZCoyote on January 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM
How exactly are Armstrong’s American teammates “Euroweenie Witch Hunters?” And since when does eyewitness testimony by people who witnessed him doping and handing out dope not count as evidence?
AngusMc on January 5, 2013 at 11:57 AM
astonerii
This guy actually knows Lance Armstrong as opposed to being his designated digital-crotch-sniffer.
Have you even considered any of the mounting evidence against him? You sound like a typical-sycophant. You will likely reject any evidence as jealousy or personal-vendetta.
What’s your stake in the lie(s)?
Capitalist Hog on January 5, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Not that I have any interest in competitive bicycling at all, but I’ve generally considered the most likely hypothesis was that Armstrong got stuck by retroactive illegality. As a top contender, he could afford the best preparation available at the time and would be using techniques at the cutting edge of what was possible….and the IOC would be making them illegal when they were not-so-cutting-edge. So Armstrong is probably “guilty” of doing in 199X what became illegal in 199X+3.
But, again, it’s a tempest in a teapot for me, being that it’s in the field of competitive bicycling. What I find more troubling, however, is how society as-a-whole is engaging in more and more retroactive-illegality witch hunts. Too much government action has been turned into a “gotcha game” to punish the successful — from EPA telling long-time property owners that they have a “wetland” to Department of the Interior telling long-time oyster farmers that they’re a pollutant. Plans are constructed legally with due process, resources are committed for decades, and arbitrary and capricious bureaucrats are snatching the results away afterwards.
While I could care less about Armstrong or his sport, I can say that I detest such bureaucrats with the heat of a thousand suns….and it looks a lot like the IOC is full of ‘em.
cthulhu on January 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Considering the fact that I do not follow cycling, never really liked Armstrong overall, always considered him to be more hype then goods, I think sycophant is a pretty absurd description of me.
I am more about peoples lives not being destroyed because a pseudo governmental agency like the UCI which is a EUROCENTRIC organization has a vendetta against an American who happened to win their favored sporting event that they always imagined only they could be good at.
As for the evidence, here is what I found out earlier today. The entirety of the evidence is that the composition of his blood changed over time. No actual illicit drugs were ever found in his blood that I have found listed on a google search.
I guess anyone found to have gun powder on their clothes after a shooting should all be locked away and have the key thrown away. Gotta be sure. Better safe than sorry and had better make certain that we always fall on the side of destroying individual lives and never on the side of when there is doubt let a potentially guilty person go free.
I think I will stick with my position until there is tangible evidence.
astonerii on January 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM