Lance Armstrong Oprah Interview

[BoyBlue_1985]

I hear he is receiving no money at all for his revelations.
Nothing for his charidee , no expences , no cash at all
its to do with him telling all.
i know he has spoken to all the leading people at livestrong , and told them what he is going to tell !!!!!!! fore-warned them
watch this space
( he is going to tell them he is a cheating, drug crazed cheat...)

Its to do with him wanting to compete in triathlons but he cant becaus3e his bike ban encompasses all biking competitively. USADA have said they will lift that part of ban if admits guilt.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

He did help raise $500 million for charity even if he is a cheating wanker

Jimmy Fucking Savile raised millions for charidee too.
I think I can see a flaw in your logic here.

I dont think we can compare a peado to someone cheating in sport really

Actually I think you can.
Both of them built their reputation on lies,and used fame for their own ends.
Without cheating,Armstrong would have been just another cyclist.
Do we excuse a lifetime of doping and stopping 'clean' cyclists getting the glory that was rightfully theirs just because he got a pang of guilt and set up a charidee?
What next - 'Ian Huntley - well yes he may have done the Soham murders,but I saw him buy a Big Issue once,so he can't be all bad'?
Armstrong was one of the biggest gobshites when it came to speaking out against drugs in sport,yet he was more guilty than anyone.
He is a hypocrite,a liar and a ****.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Jimmy Fucking Savile raised millions for charidee too.
I think I can see a flaw in your logic here.

I dont think we can compare a peado to someone cheating in sport really

Actually I think you can.
Both of them built their reputation on lies,and used fame for their own ends.
Without cheating,Armstrong would have been just another cyclist.
Do we excuse a lifetime of doping and stopping 'clean' cyclists getting the glory that was rightfully theirs just because he got a pang of guilt and set up a charidee?
What next - 'Ian Huntley - well yes he may have done the Soham murders,but I saw him buy a Big Issue once,so he can't be all bad'?
Armstrong was one of the biggest gobshites when it came to speaking out against drugs in sport,yet he was more guilty than anyone.
He is a hypocrite,a liar and a ****.

I agree on all aspects of his character there ;)
I would never agree a man that cheated in sport for 10 years in a time its become very clear every fucker was ranks the same as a man that abused over 400 people in his lifetime, both cunts but both rank in different areas even if its just my opinion.
I would also say off the back of a lie that probably hasn't destroyed anyone's life other than his own (see Saville 400 people) forming a charity that has raised as much as it has is a good thing to come from a very bad situation.

 

[The Pink Panther]

I've not followed this bloke's case avidly but didn't he pass the tests each time he was tested? Then, suddenly the regulatory body just seemed to announce his guilt , without a proper explanation.
I confess that I may have missed something but can anyone explain this?

It was strange the way he was declared a cheat, very similar to the way Saville was outed and then all the evidence followed
Armstrong did pass all the tests and his team mates and team managers told of how powders were dropped into urine samples to sterilise them and other ways to beat the doping tests

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I dont think we can compare a peado to someone cheating in sport really

Actually I think you can.
Both of them built their reputation on lies,and used fame for their own ends.
Without cheating,Armstrong would have been just another cyclist.
Do we excuse a lifetime of doping and stopping 'clean' cyclists getting the glory that was rightfully theirs just because he got a pang of guilt and set up a charidee?
What next - 'Ian Huntley - well yes he may have done the Soham murders,but I saw him buy a Big Issue once,so he can't be all bad'?
Armstrong was one of the biggest gobshites when it came to speaking out against drugs in sport,yet he was more guilty than anyone.
He is a hypocrite,a liar and a ****.

I agree on all aspects of his character there ;)
I would never agree a man that cheated in sport for 10 years in a time its become very clear every fucker was ranks the same as a man that abused over 400 people in his lifetime, both cunts but both rank in different areas even if its just my opinion.
I would also say off the back of a lie that probably hasn't destroyed anyone's life other than his own (see Saville 400 people) forming a charity that has raised as much as it has is a good thing to come from a very bad situation.

Ok,I'll concede that he isn't quite in the Savile bracket,but I don't want to see his fucking cheating face on Parkinson or Jonathan Woss anytime soon looking all contrite and apologetic and trying to win public sympathy.
He should be ignored and left to rot in anonymity.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Actually I think you can.
Both of them built their reputation on lies,and used fame for their own ends.
Without cheating,Armstrong would have been just another cyclist.
Do we excuse a lifetime of doping and stopping 'clean' cyclists getting the glory that was rightfully theirs just because he got a pang of guilt and set up a charidee?
What next - 'Ian Huntley - well yes he may have done the Soham murders,but I saw him buy a Big Issue once,so he can't be all bad'?
Armstrong was one of the biggest gobshites when it came to speaking out against drugs in sport,yet he was more guilty than anyone.
He is a hypocrite,a liar and a ****.

I agree on all aspects of his character there ;)
I would never agree a man that cheated in sport for 10 years in a time its become very clear every fucker was ranks the same as a man that abused over 400 people in his lifetime, both ***** but both rank in different areas even if its just my opinion.
I would also say off the back of a lie that probably hasn't destroyed anyone's life other than his own (see Saville 400 people) forming a charity that has raised as much as it has is a good thing to come from a very bad situation.

Ok,I'll concede that he isn't quite in the Savile bracket,but I don't want to see his fucking cheating face on Parkinson or Jonathan Woss anytime soon looking all contrite and apologetic and trying to win public sympathy.
He should be ignored and left to rot in anonymity.

The good thing was is that despite a bit here and there he was generally being left to rot as I feel alot of journalists felt "done" by him as well some had centred there own career around him and though "good riddance"
And then wobbly ass Oprah in between eating cheeseburgers and endorsing terrible books called him

 

[Carstairs]

<a class="postlink" href="http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Re ... cision.pdf</a>



If anyone hasn't read it, it is a very interesting read, albeit slightly long.

If anybody is still of the belief that Armstrong's guilt is in question, the Reasoned Decision report is essential reading.

The man is a cheat, pure and simple. And he presided over a corrupt regime within his teams that is unprecedented in professional sport.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I've not followed this bloke's case avidly but didn't he pass the tests each time he was tested? Then, suddenly the regulatory body just seemed to announce his guilt , without a proper explanation.
I confess that I may have missed something but can anyone explain this?

It was strange the way he was declared a cheat, very similar to the way Saville was outed and then all the evidence followed
Armstrong did pass all the tests and his team mates and team managers told of how powders were dropped into urine samples to sterilise them and other ways to beat the doping tests

If that's the case, then I still can't understand why the authorities didn't say so when they announced the ban, at the same time supplying the requisite proofs etc;
Just prove that the tests had been tampered with by Armstrong and there is then no doubt.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf



If anyone hasn't read it, it is a very interesting read, albeit slightly long.

If anybody is still of the belief that Armstrong's guilt is in question, the Reasoned Decision report is essential reading.

The man is a cheat, pure and simple. And he presided over a corrupt regime within his teams that is unprecedented in professional sport.

Slightly fucking long, christ<br /><br />-- Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:17 am --<br /><br />My main question is why? Why after all the time that had passed did the USADA decide to go after him?

 

[Carstairs]

My main question is why? Why after all the time that had passed did the USADA decide to go after him?

Because it was widely known throughout Professional Cycling that he was "at it".