Any chance Jimmy was asked would this change his mind on Shichelle Mith?
Still maintains Ben Johnson was âthe man of the 1988 Olympicsâ.
Jimmy should have been put out to grass a long time ago.
Surely it was to be expected that heâd admit no more than he absolutely had to. This is a PR exercise after all, itâs not as if this is genuinely some cathartic episode for him where he can cleanse himself of his wrongdoing. The guyâs a sociopath, he doesnât believe he has anything to be sorry for. He just did what he had to do etc.
The thing about him having ridden âpaniaguaâ for his comeback was pretty interesting, it was funny to see him slip right back into the mould when he said that the suggestion he was doping then was what really hurt him.
Iâm not outraged. My comparision is not exhaustive.
My profession is not disgraced.
It was tweeted around a lot last night that Armstrong maintained he didnât dope because 2009 and 2010 were âinside the statute of limitationsâ. Exactly what statute of limitations could this be, considering he has already been stripped of his third place finish in 2009?
In November 2005 Armstrong testified under oath that Betsy Andreuâs story about Armstrong admitting to doctors in 1996 that he doped was not true. If Armstrong had admiitted last night that he lied under oath (which he didnât), could he have still been done for perjury or is that now outside the statute of limitations, given that itâs now over seven years ago?
[quote=âSidney, post: 152421â]It was tweeted around a lot last night that Armstrong maintained he didnât dope because 2009 and 2010 were âinside the statute of limitationsâ. Exactly what statute of limitations could this be, considering he has already been stripped of his third place finish in 2009?
In November 2005 Armstrong testified under oath that Betsy Andreuâs story about Armstrong admitting to doctors in 1996 that he doped was not true. If Armstrong had admiitted last night that he lied under oath (which he didnât), could he have still been done for perjury or is that now outside the statute of limitations, given that itâs now over seven years ago?[/quote]
Could it be US drug laws?
I think it is outside. Hope I am wrong though.
Sentence of the year.
from my undestanding of reading stuff abou it all, he had an option with USADA to come clean and they at the time could only go back on 2 or 3 of his tour wins with the statute timing when they initialised proceedings. Because he refused, they went the whole way. Not sure how that works though. From what I have read too, his doping offence should only carry a maximum of 8 years suspension, hence him saying he gave up in 2005, so he would be reinstated now to compete. So in effect his confession is being done in the hope of getting the lifetime ban overturned, and retrograded to 2005 for 8 years. I think the federal case may be completely gone now though, and that move to close that seems like it was political more than anything.
Walsh starts to put the boot in a wee bit (ignore the dreadful been/being mistake, it nearly ruined it for me also)
Lance Armstrong never had the cycling ability to win a âcleanâ Tour de France, according to Sunday Times journalist David Walsh.
Walsh was speaking to Pat Kenny on RTĂ Radio in the aftermath of Armstrongâs interview with Oprah Winfrey where the Texan admitted to doping offences for each of his seven Tour de France victories.
âMy feeling from a long way back was that the guy was doping,â said Walsh.
"I knew him to be a liar and a bully. Iâm glad all the stuff has come out â but I wasnât waiting for it. People will say that Walsh got it right there â but I never felt that I was saying anything wrong about Armstrong.
"In years to come when people reflect on my journalistic career I would like to think that the work I did in exposing Armstrong will be among the things mentioned.
âI feel glad for the witnesses that gave me my story. They are now seen as truth tellers after been bullied and vilified for years.â
Asked about Armstrongâs ability as a rider and what level he would have attained if he hadnât went down the road of using performance enhancers, the response was blunt. âMy view from day one was that Lance Armstrong was never as Tour de France winner without the use of drugs.â
Walsh continued: âHe rode the race four times in the 90s before he mastered a proper doping programme and his best finish in those four years was 36th. He actually didnât complete the other three.â
âHe never gave us a sense back then that he was physiologically suited to the demands of the raceâ - David Walsh
"He participated in 13 mountain stages in this period and did not come anywhere near the leaders at the finish line. He never gave us a sense back then that he was physiologically suited to the demands of the race.
âMany of the greats of the Tour won the race at the first time of asking, like Bernard Hinault, Eddie Merckx and Jacques Anquetil.
"They were all young when they triumphed and they didnât need four chances to suddenly discover they were great Tour de France riders.
âI believe if Lance Armstrong was riding in an era when there wasnât blood doping products â transfusions were not being used or EPO did not exist â he wouldnât have come within a million miles of winning the Tour.
âWhereas the âold drugsâ made the man that best that he could be â these ânew drugsâ created a different man. It was that difference that Lance Armstrong benefited from."
In speaking to Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong made the assertion that you could not win the Tour de France without been on drugs. Walsh rubbishes that conclusion.
âItâs a ridiculous comment.
"Indeed, thinking about it makes me realise that journalism has failed the Tour de France. Many in my profession describe the race as inhuman.
âThe riders would pick up on that and say that they are then entitled to take whatever measures they like to make it bearable. The race is not inhuman.
âPaul Kimmage rode the race clean. All you do is ride the race slower. You may not achieve the speeds of the dopers, but who cares!â
[quote=âWatch The Break, post: 152419â]
Surely it was to be expected that heâd admit no more than he absolutely had to. [/quote]
I actually thought he might give more of an insight into the European scene as it was when he arrived there. If Oprah was going to bring some videos, why didnât he bring some videos of Gewiss-Ballan in '94, Mapei 1-2-3 in Roubaix in 96 or whenever, Big Mig climbing like a mountain goat on Hautacam in 1990âŚIt would have given the average joe the knowledge that to win the big races in Europe you needed to take drugs.
Iâm surprised he didnât try to blame a lot on the crooked DSâ and on his own, Bruyneel. Spread the blame around a bit. I guess heâd be too open to litigation.
Itâll ALL come out though eventually, Iâm sure of it.
Oprah and other Yanks wouldnât understand that shit Thraw.
True enough. Iâm surprised actuallu he doesnât just go back and live in Girona or some part of Italy. The tifosi would probably treat him as a hero over there.
Indurain was crafty in that he always just did what he had to in the mountains and no more. Heâd always just sit on the wheel of Bugno, Chiappucci, Rominger or whoever, let them win the stage and then blitz them in the time-trials. I donât ever remember him putting in a performance in the mountains that would immediately set the red lights flashing in your mind but nobody ever dropped him.
The obvious drug-fuelled performances in the mountains I remember were Chiapucciâs lone break to Sestrieres in 1992, Riis on Hautacam in 1996 and Pantani in the Alps in 1998 when he blitzed Ullrich almost from the starting flag in appalling conditions. I remember watching the stage with Riis live and the camera shots of him with a face like a murderer and the sweat dripping off his nose and laughing to myself at the ridiculousness of it all. The guy had been a pretty average domestique for the vast majority of his career and here he was completely blitzing everybody.
Then Armstrong on Mont Ventoux in 2000 and Luz Ardiden in 2003 when he fell and then rocketed past Ullrich. Landisâs lone break which won him the Tour in 2006 was the most preposterous of the lot after heâd been destroyed the previous day.
:o
Say it aint so?