On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the consensus on this is that: A) his sponsors and board members at > LiveStrong have been pressuring him to come clean. Presumably they have some > focus group or other data that indicates that while he might take a short > term hit, eventually donations to his org (and maybe even his value to > sponsors) would go up if he was seen to have confessed and apologies. This > is important to Armstrong - not just (or even primarily) for the good his > organization does, but because this is his primary way of staying in the > public eye post-racing career. I suppose that's a reason, and a viable one, but I'm just not seeing it. Granted, I haven't seen the interview. > B) he apparently wants to compete in > biathlons and other kinds of races, many of which are sanctioned by > organizations that have banned him. There is some hope that if he comes > clean he will be able to get off the banned list earlier (though I think I > read it won't be any time real soon no matter what he does). I've heard this tossed about, and I don't buy this one at all. Armstrong has, over the last few years, organized spur-of-the-moment cycling events in cities all over the world on Twitter. Disgraced or not, sanctioned or not, if he wanted to create "The Lance Armstrong Triathlon," he could and people would show up to compete, regardless of lifetime bans by ridiculous committees. Years ago, LA DJ's Mark and Brian did a broadcast live from inside Graceland, disguising microphones as umbrellas. They were caught and the folks behind the Presley estate told the radio duo they were "permanently banned from owning, buying, or appreciating Elvis music or memorabilia." To me, a ban on being athletic is just as stupid and pointless. > I disagree a little with your premise - I think the evidence that he was > doping is very strong - strong enough to stand up in court, and does not > rely only on the testimony of co-conspirators. I think his lawyers got some > indication that they would be able to get a better deal from various > prosecuting authorities, and maybe even a walk, if he comes clean and then > names names. I've seen no evidence other than the words of former teammates and others within the world of cycling. If they had a positive test to point to, they'd be pointing to it. Hell, the positive test would have its own talk show. Granted my knowledge of the law is limited, but I cannot imagine a lawsuit against him going better with him confessing to what he's been accused -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
