'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

EauRouge79 · 18-01-2013 03:17AM

Dumping the syringes in coke cans with his fans oustide the door, kind of kills the glamorous cleancut sportstar image once and for all for me.

Mr.Nice Guy · 18-01-2013 03:17AM

No

Is there a reason why he wouldn't want to admit to doping post-2005?

Zyzz · 18-01-2013 03:18AM

No

I'm glued to it..what a pathetic excuse for a human being..

Seanohea · 18-01-2013 03:18AM

No

He prob feels prouder of 3rd in 2009 than any other year

nc6000 · 18-01-2013 03:19AM

No

So he only cheated for the 7 he won?

Neeson · 18-01-2013 03:19AM

I feel for him

kingoffifa · 18-01-2013 03:20AM

Yes, but he's still great

jesus the second hour must have some savage sca in it !!!

i bet its a face off with tyler...

Zyzz · 18-01-2013 03:20AM

No

Seanohea wrote: »

How can anyone believe what he says re 2009

The doping testing prevented him from getting away with using..and if he was caught then sh*t would have hit the fan like what has happened the past few months

AK333 · 18-01-2013 03:20AM

No

Probably terrified of having to pay back all the prize money and the money he scammed from the newspaper when he sued them saying he hadn't doped

irishfeen · 18-01-2013 03:22AM

My god how the mighty have fallen... from being paraded as an inspiration for years to now becoming an official drug cheating so and so...

unkymo · 18-01-2013 03:22AM

No

AK333 wrote: »

Probably terrified of having to pay back all the prize money and the money he scammed from the newspaper when he sued them saying he hadn't doped

But he just admitted he doped so he's f***ed..

GoldFour4 · 18-01-2013 03:22AM

Tweet from TJ Quinn of ESPN. Tells us why he says he didn't dope past 2005.

Sez last time on dope was in '05. No doping or blood transfusions in '09 or '10. Know what that does? Puts admission outside statute of lim.

leftism · 18-01-2013 03:24AM

No

He just said the bio passport works, then 10 seconds later says that he had not one, but two false positives based on said passport!?!?!

I call shenanigans on that....

Wishbone Ash · 18-01-2013 03:24AM

"there was a level of expectation"

Darkglasses · 18-01-2013 03:25AM

malistheman wrote: »

Tweet from TJ Quinn of ESPN. Tells us why he says he didn't dope past 2005.

For the imbeciles present...what exactly does that mean?

MrMischief · 18-01-2013 03:25AM

No

State of his gaff!

Wishbone Ash · 18-01-2013 03:27AM

"I was a bully- yes"

Lumen · 18-01-2013 03:27AM

malistheman wrote: »

Tweet from TJ Quinn of ESPN. Tells us why he says he didn't dope past 2005.

Quote:
Sez last time on dope was in '05. No doping or blood transfusions in '09 or '10. Know what that does? Puts admission outside statute of lim.

Statue of limitations for what? Doping sanctions? He's not going to get the ban overturned.

Makes no difference to the civil cases.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2013 03:27AM

How I feel at this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37SrQdIqKiU

Wishbone Ash · 18-01-2013 03:27AM

Here we go - the childhood!

Seanohea · 18-01-2013 03:29AM

No

Statute of limitations, he can't be taken to court on basis Of 2009/2010 tests, well he didn't admit to it. Makes sense now

alfalad · 18-01-2013 03:29AM

No

Thanks to those putting up updates. I'm stuck in work in Sydney and can't get OWN to work. So it's great to know what's happening.

GoldFour4 · 18-01-2013 03:29AM

Darkglasses wrote: »

For the imbeciles present...what exactly does that mean?

Basically means you can't bring something to court after a certain period of time.

deisedevil · 18-01-2013 03:30AM

No

Lumen wrote: »

Statue of limitations for what? Doping sanctions? He's not going to get the ban overturned.

Makes no difference to the civil cases.

Taken from an article.

"Recall the 2005 SCA Promotions $5M payout for winning seven Tour de France titles in which SCA refused to pay Mr. Armstrong on the grounds that he doped. Mr. Armstrong subsequently sued SCA and won a $7.5M judgment (including interest and court fees). As part of the evidence of that lawsuit, Mr. Armstrong participated in depositions which were taken under oath. Perjury means knowingly lying about something important while under oath. Although we don’t have a specific admission of doping by Mr. Armstrong, there is overwhelming evidence that he doped and therefore committed perjury by repeatedly saying in those depositions, “I never took performance-enhancing drugs.”

Saying he didn't dope past 2005 keeps him safe from perjury.

Neeson · 18-01-2013 03:31AM

What time is it over?

furiousox · 18-01-2013 03:31AM

No

No mention of LeMond, Bassons, Andreau, Walsh, Kimmage, O'Reilly yet

Seanohea · 18-01-2013 03:31AM

No

Surely Sunday times can sue him, David Walsh, Paul kimmage, Emma o'reilly

kmart6 · 18-01-2013 03:31AM

MrMischief wrote: »

State of his gaff!

Even though I presume that's not serious, it is actual a hotel in Austin,TX

MrMischief · 18-01-2013 03:31AM

No

Wonder will Kimmage and that famous press conference get a mention

Paully D · 18-01-2013 03:32AM

Oprah's been pretty impressive so far IMO.

'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Comments